`
` IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
` FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
` ________________________
`
` No. 10-12655
`Non-Argument Calendar
` ________________________
`
` FILED
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
` JUNE 6, 2011
`JOHN LEY
`CLERK
`
` D.C. Docket No. 1:97-cr-00838-JAL-1
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`llllllllllllllllllll
`
` l Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
` versus
`
`ALFREDO BERRIO,
`
`lllllllllllllllllllll
`
` Defendant-Appellant.
`
`________________________
`
` Appeal from the United States District Court
` for the Southern District of Florida
` ________________________
`
`(June 6, 2011)
`
`Before HULL, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`Alfredo Berrio appeals his 130-month sentence, imposed within the
`
`applicable guideline range, after pleading guilty to a single count of conspiracy to
`
`
`
`import cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. Before Berrio pled guilty, he fled
`
`the country and failed to appear at his initial plea hearing. The district court then
`
`issued a warrant for his arrest. In 2003, after Berrio was arrested in Brazil for an
`
`unrelated offense, provisional warrants were issued for Berrio’s extradition to the
`
`United States. On direct appeal, Berrio argues that he should be given credit for
`
`the time he served in prison in Brazil from the time he was served the provisional
`
`arrest warrants in 2003 for the instant charge until the time his United States
`
`sentence commenced.
`
`The Attorney General through the BOP, and not the district courts, is
`
`authorized, under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), to compute sentence credit awards after
`
`sentencing. Dawson v. Scott, 50 F.3d 884, 889 (11th Cir. 1995). The Attorney
`
`General delegated his authority in this area to the BOP. United States v. Lucas,
`
`898 F.2d 1554, 1555-56 (11th Cir. 1990). We have held that the granting of credit
`
`for time served is in the first instance an administrative, not a judicial, function.
`
`United States v. Flanagan, 868 F.2d 1544, 1546 (11th Cir. 1989). The district
`
`court, therefore, cannot circumvent the Attorney General’s initial discretion
`
`concerning whether to credit a defendant’s time in custody prior to sentencing.
`
`Lucas, 898 F.2d at 1555.
`
`Furthermore, an inmate must exhaust his administrative remedies with the
`
`2
`
`
`
`BOP before seeking judicial relief. Id. In fact, the district court does not have
`
`jurisdiction to consider a defendant’s claim if he fails to exhaust his administrative
`
`remedies. Id.
`
`A claim concerning credit for time served is not appropriate on direct
`
`appeal, and should be filed as a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2241, against the BOP. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Lamar, 60 F.3d 745, 746 (11th
`
`Cir. 1995) (noting that defendant filed a § 2241 petition seeking credit for time he
`
`spent at his home under pre-trial, restrictive conditions); Dawson, 50 F.3d at 886
`
`(noting that defendant filed a § 2241 petition after exhausting his BOP
`
`administrative remedies, seeking credit for time he spent at a halfway house).
`
`Accordingly, we will not consider Berrio’s claims here on direct appeal.
`
`Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we
`
`affirm.
`
`AFFIRMED.1
`
`1
`
`Berrio’s request for oral argument is denied.
`
`3
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
