United States District Court, D. Minnesota
A. Slaughter, Jr., United States Attorney's Office, for
Espinoza-Cardenas, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD NELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Ramon
Espinoza-Cardenas's Motion for Hardship Credit for
Hard-Time Served [Doc. No. 609]. For the reasons set forth
below, this Court denies Defendant's Motion.
August 5, 2014, Defendant was arrested during a traffic stop.
(PSR ¶ 29.) The stop led to the seizure of 10 pounds of
methamphetamine from Defendant's car. (Id.
¶ 36, 38.) Defendant was first charged in Steele County,
Minnesota, and was later charged federally by criminal
complaint on September 4, 2014. (Compl. [Doc. No. 1].)
September 8, 2014, Defendant appeared before the Court by
writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. (Appl. for
Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 2]; Minute Entry for Sept. 8,
2014 [Doc. No. 4].) Two days later, during the preliminary
hearing, the Court found that there was probable cause.
(Minute Entry for Sept. 12, 2014 [Doc. No. 6].) Defendant
also waived his right to a detention hearing. (Id.)
Defendant was held in federal custody pending the resolution
of a Steele County hold, at which time, he was to be released
to a half-way house at the direction of the U.S. Department
of Probation and Pretrial Services. (Id.)
September 11, Defendant was charged by Indictment.
(Indictment [Doc. No. 10].) Then, on September 23, 2014, the
Indictment was superseded to include additional defendants
and allegations. (Superseding Indictment [Doc. No. 15].)
Defendant was charged with conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846 (Count 1) and
possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(A) (Count 16). (Id.)
was placed in a half-way house on September 26, 2014. (PSR
¶ 6.) On May 5, 2015, Defendant plead guilty to Count 1
of the Superseding Indictment. (Plea Agreement [Doc. No.
264].) Later that month, Defendant's conditions of
release were modified to allow him to reside in Fresno,
California pending sentencing. (PSR ¶ 6.)
October 4, 2016, Defendant was sentenced to 30 months in
custody. (Sentencing J. [Doc. No. 456].) The Court filed a
written amended judgment memorializing his sentence on
October 14, 2016. (Amended Sentencing J. [Doc. No. 482].)
Defendant did not appeal his sentence.
November 27, 2017, Defendant filed the instant Motion for
Hardship Credit for Hard-Time Served. In it, Defendant asks
this Court to credit the sixty days that he estimated that he
served at the Owatonna Steele County Detention Facility
towards his total “hard time” sentence and also
requests that the Court “grant two days credit for one
day served.” (Def.'s Mot. at 1.)
to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a), “[a] person who has been
sentenced to a term of imprisonment . . . shall be committed
to the custody of the [Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)]
until the expiration of the term imposed, or until earlier
released for satisfactory behavior.” Neither the
Federal Rules nor the United States Code gives a court the
authority to modify a defendant's sentence once that
defendant has been committed to the custody of the BOP.
Specifically, “[a] judgment of conviction that includes
a sentence of imprisonment constitutes a final judgment and
may not be modified by a district court except in limited
circumstances.” Dillon v. United States, 560
U.S. 817, 824 (2010) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b))
(quotation marks and brackets omitted).
defendant is sentenced, it is the BOP, not the district
court, that determines the credit for time served. United
States v. Pardue, 363 F.3d 695, 699 (8th Cir. 2004)
(citing United States v. Iversen, 90 F.3d 1340,
1344-45 (8th Cir. 1996)). And if a defendant feels that the
BOP has improperly calculated this figure, administrative
procedures exist ...