SHRADER v. PLUMLEY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-24No. No. 20-15153

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Shrader's habeas corpus petition, concluding that the sentencing court properly imposed a 235-month custodial term followed by 60 months of supervised release as authorized by federal law, and that the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of his release date was therefore correct.

Thomas Creighton Shrader, a federal prisoner, sought habeas corpus relief through a petition challenging his release date calculation. Shrader argued that the Bureau of Prisons should have subtracted his 60-month supervised release term from his 235-month custodial sentence when determining when he would be released. The appellate court rejected this argument, finding that his sentencing clearly reflected the judge's intent to impose 235 months of incarceration followed by a separate 60-month period of supervised release.

Federal law permits judges to impose supervised release as a term to follow after imprisonment. Because Shrader's sentence was lawfully imposed under these provisions, his calculation of the release date was incorrect. The court also denied his motions to reject the government's response brief and to take judicial notice of the district court's order.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether supervised release should be deducted from a custodial sentence when calculating release date
Interpretation of sentencing court's intent regarding the duration and structure of the sentence
Lawfulness of imposing supervised release as a separate term following incarceration

Procedural posture

A federal prisoner appealed pro se from the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Thomas Creighton Shrader appeals pro se from the district courts judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.

Shrader contends that, because his Guidelines range was 188-235 months, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) should have deducted the 60-month term of supervised release when calculating the release date for his 235-month sentence. Shraders argument is unavailing. As the district court concluded, the record reflects that the sentencing court intended to impose a 235-month custodial sentence, to be followed by 60 months of supervised release. Contrary to Shraders argument, this sentence was authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a), which permits the sentencing court to impose a period of supervised release to be served after the incarceration term authorized by the applicable criminal statute. See United States v. Montenegro-Rojo, 908 F.2d 425, 431-32 (9th Cir. 1990). Therefore, the district court properly denied Shraders petition. Shraders other allegations of error by the district court are not supported by the record.

Shraders motion to reject the governments answering brief is denied. Shraders motion to take judicial notice of the district courts order is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.