Opinion
No. 03 Crim. 0051 (LAK).
January 24, 2005
ORDER
Defendant was sentenced on September 28, 2004 for a violation of the conditions of his supervised release to a term of imprisonment of 30 months, 15 months consecutive to and 15 months concurrent with a yet to be imposed state sentence expected to be 1½ to 3 years. Defendant now has written to the Court, complaining that the Bureau of Prisons has determined that his projected release date is September 29, 2006 and noted that the Court's goal of making half of the sentence it imposed concurrent with the pending state sentence could not be accomplished because the state had paroled the defendant prior to the imposition of this Court's sentence. There is no indication that defendant served the government.
In order to obtain judicial review of the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of his sentence, defendant first must exhaust his administrative remedies within the Bureau and then, if still dissatisfied, may seek judicial review by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district in which he is confined. See United States v. Whaley, 148 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 1998). There is no indication that defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies, and he has not filed a habeas petition. Should he do either, he would be well advised to explain how he could have been paroled on a state sentence that, as far as he and his counsel told this Court at the time of sentencing, had not yet been imposed.
Defendant's application for assistance is denied without prejudice to his pursuit of such remedies.
SO ORDERED.