Opinion
1:14-cr-00200-BLW
03-25-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE MANUEL MENCHACA, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is pro se Defendant Jose Manuel Menchaca's Motion to Clarify Revocation Judgment (Dkt. 60). The Court will deny Mr. Menchaca's motion for the reasons stated below.
BACKGROUND
In October 2014, Mr. Menchaca pled guilty to one count of distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Minute Entry, Dkt. 24. He was sentenced to 60 months incarceration followed by 5 years of supervised release. Judgment, Dkt. 35. In 2020, a petition on supervised released was filed against Mr. Menchaca for violating the terms of his release. Petition, Dkt. 38. He was then sentenced to 33 months incarceration followed by two-years of supervised release. Judgment, Dkt. 59. This sentence was to run “partially concurrent and partially consecutive to the defendant's state imprisonment. . . in that the defendant's sentence will commence on the earlier date in which the defendant is released from state custody, or July 1, 2022.” Id. The Court also recommended to the Bureau of Prisons that Mr. Menchaca be credited with all time served in federal custody.
In September 2023, Mr. Menchaca filed this motion to clarify the judgment. More specifically, he asks the Court for credit for time served from the date of his federal detainer on his supervised release violation warrant to his sentencing date. Mr. Menchaca is currently incarcerated at the Idaho State Correctional Institution and has a projected release date of June 6, 2031. The Bureau of Prisons has “not performed a calculation of credit for the Defendant, since he is still serving out his state sentence.” Gov t Response, at 2-3, Dkt. 62.
ANALYSIS
Mr. Menchaca requests that the Court “grant credit for time served” for the time he was held in county jail while on federal detainer. In the revocation judgment, the Court recommended that the Bureau of Prisons credit Mr. Menchaca with all time served in federal custody. Judgment, Dkt. 59. This type of recommendation is the Court's standard procedure because “[c]redit for time served. . . is a matter which generally falls within the province of the Bureau of Prisons under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).” United States v. Drake, 49 F.3d 1438, 1440 (9th Cir. 1995). Here, the Bureau of Prisons has not yet calculated the credit Mr. Menchaca will receive for his time served and the Court lacks the authority to credit any defendant with time served. The Court may recommend the Bureau of Prisons credit a defendant with time served and it has already done so here.
Accordingly, the Court will deny Mr. Menchaca's motion.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's Motion to Clarify (Dkt. 60) is DENIED.
2. The Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Defendant.