Opinion
No. 91 CR 821.
May 29, 2008
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Just two weeks ago this District Court received from petitioner Lenell Smith ("Smith") a pro se document captioned "Petition for Minute Order and Clarification in the Matter of Pretrial Detention Credit." Because Smith had been tried and convicted before, and then sentenced by, this Court's former colleague Honorable Ann Williams, and because Judge Williams has since been elevated to the Court of Appeals, the current Petition was assigned at random to this Court's calendar. It immediately requested retrieval of the underlying criminal case record from storage, and that file (or at least the portion of it that had been before the Court of Appeals on Smith's appeal, plus a document that is directly responsive to Smith's current Petition), has now been delivered to this Court's chambers.
In brief Smith complains that the Bureau of Prisons has miscalculated his release date because it has failed to award the proper credit for time served in custody before he was sentenced. On that score the attached memorandum order (Dkt. No. 110), which was entered by Judge Williams on September 18, 1998, squarely confirms Smith's contention that Judge Williams had intended that he receive credit against his 30-month custodial sentence for time served from October 18, 1991, not from the later date selected by Bureau of Prisons personnel. And as for the statement that Smith's Petition ascribes to a Bureau office employee, requiring that the minute order "must be signed by the U.S. Attorney," that is flat-out wrong — it is of course for the court, and not for the prosecutor, to confirm what the court itself has done.
Two signed counterparts of this memorandum are being transmitted to Smith for his use. If the Bureau of Prisons does not cure its error swiftly, this Court expects to hear further from Smith at an early date.
Although (as stated in the preceding paragraph of the text) the United States Attorney's office plays no role in confirming the accuracy of judicial rulings, this Court has also referred the matter to the United States Attorney's office with a directive to follow up on Smith's request as an administrative matter.
Exhibit