United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Chandan Prentiss Hurd, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
Michael J. Davis, United States District Court.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Chandan Prentiss
Hurd's Motion to Reconsider Petitioner's Jail Time
Credit Due to Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances.
[Docket No. 102]
November 7, 2013, Defendant Chandan Prentiss Hurd pled guilty
to Count 1 of the Indictment, Felon in Possession of a
Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2). On July 23, 2014, the Court sentenced Hurd to 71
months in prison. [Docket No. 69] Hurd appealed his
conviction and sentence to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. On May 8, 2015, the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
United States v. Hurd, 785 F.3d 311 (8th Cir. 2015).
August 6, 2015, Hurd filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C. §
2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in
Federal Custody. [Docket No. 88] Hurd asserted that his
predicate offense of Fleeing a Peace Officer only qualified
as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines based
on the residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) and
that that the application of that residual clause was
unconstitutional under Johnson v. United States, 135
S.Ct. 2551 (2015). The matter was stayed pending the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Beckles v. United
March 10, 2017, Hurd filed a document seeking to amend his
§ 2255 motion to add a claim requesting that the Court
order the Bureau of Prisons to give him credit for the time
he served in U.S. Marshals custody from May 13, 2013 until
July 23, 2014. [Docket No. 97] He asserted that, on May 13,
2013, he was transferred from Hennepin County Jail into U.S.
Marshals custody, but that the Bureau of Prisons has not
given him credit for his time in federal custody before
10, 2017, the Court denied Hurd's § 2255 motion. The
Court also denied his request to amend the motion to add a
claim to review the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of
credit for time in U.S. Marshals' custody, because such a
request needed to be brought in the form of a habeas petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed within the district where
Hurd is confined, in the District of Columbia, or in a
district in which the Bureau of Prisons maintains a regional
office. [Docket No. 100] Judgment was entered on May 11,
2017. [Docket No. 101] Hurd did not appeal the May 2017 Order
and Judgment. On August 7, 2017, Hurd filed the current
motion for reconsideration of the Court's denial of his
request to amend his § 2255 motion to add a claim
regarding jail credit.
Eighth Circuit “typically construe[s] [a motion for
reconsideration of a denial of a 2255 motion] as a Rule 59(e)
motion to alter or amend the judgment or as a Rule 60(b)
motion for relief from judgment.” Ackerland v.
United States, 633 F.3d 698, 701 (8th Cir. 2011).
Hurd's motion for reconsideration was filed more than 28
days after entry of judgment, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) does not apply. Therefore, the Court interprets
Hurd's motion as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 60(b).
motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its
legal representative from a final judgment, order, ...