Submitted April 20, 2015
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Glenn T. Suddaby, J.). Petitioner-Appellant Daniel Lugo appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that a state's late compliance with a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum rendered the writ invalid. We AFFIRM the judgment entered by the district court.
DANIEL LUGO, Pro se, Ray Brook, New York, for Petitioner-Appellant.
RAJIT S. DOSANJH, Assistant United States Attorney, for Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, New York, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: KEARSE, PARKER, AND WESLEY, Circuit Judges.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Glenn T. Suddaby, J.). Petitioner-Appellant Daniel Lugo, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he asserted that the Bureau of Prisons (the " BOP" ) incorrectly calculated his ten-year sentence. While serving a state sentence, Lugo was indicted on federal charges and a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was issued, calling for his transfer to federal authorities for arraignment on a certain date. However, that date passed before Lugo was transferred, and he contends that his transfer was therefore not pursuant to the writ but rather was an outright transfer by the State to federal custody, causing all of the ensuing time he spent in custody to be attributable to his eventual federal sentence. For the reasons that follow, we hold that even if there was a technical deficiency in connection with the execution of the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum that was issued, that deficiency did not invalidate the otherwise valid writ, and we affirm.
In 2000, Lugo was sentenced to six to twelve years' imprisonment following his New York State convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance, under N.Y. Penal Law § 220.16, and conspiracy, under N.Y. Penal Law § 105.15. He began serving his sentence in March 2000. While serving his state sentence, Lugo was indicted on federal charges and temporarily transferred to federal custody after the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. The writ directed that he be produced on October 10, 2001 for arraignment on the federal charges and that, thereafter, United States Marshals " maintain[ Lugo] within the jurisdiction of [the Eastern District of New York] pending the satisfaction of [the] writ." Lugo v. Hudson, No. 9:13-cv-00753(GTS), *3 (N.D.N.Y. June 16, 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court's relevant docket entry did not indicate the issuance of the writ but merely stated that a sealed document had been filed. For reasons not apparent on the record, Lugo was not transferred to federal custody until October 18, 2001, and was arraigned on October 19, 2001. Lugo remained in federal
custody through his federal trial and sentencing.
Lugo was convicted in federal court in October 2002 and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, to run consecutively to his state court sentence. Lugo was returned to a state correctional facility in November 2002. Pursuant to the writ, the time that Lugo spent in custody for his federal prosecution was credited towards his ongoing New York State sentence. That sentence ended in October 2008 when Lugo was released on parole, at which point he was transferred into the custody of the U.S. Marshals and began serving his ten-year federal sentence.
The BOP calculated Lugo's federal release date to be September 3, 2017. In June 2013, Lugo filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in district court, asserting that the BOP had incorrectly calculated his sentence because no valid writ had been issued. Lugo argued, inter alia, that the writ was invalid because it required that he be produced in federal court for arraignment on October 10, 2001, and that when he was not so produced, there was no valid writ ad prosequendum that required him to be produced for arraignment at a later date. He contended that without a valid writ, his ten-year federal sentence began to run on the day it was imposed in 2002 (and had therefore expired ...