The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert B. Kugler United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner's submission of § 2241 application and Respondent's answer to the same, see Docket Entries Nos. 1 and 6, and Petitioner's traverse. See Docket Entry No. 8. For the reasons stated below, Petitioner's § 2241 application will be denied.
Petitioner's currently served federal sentence ensues from the events of January 30, 1998, and February 24, 1998, when he sold crack cocaine to undercover agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Since Petitioner committed these offenses while being on parole on his pre-existing State-imposed sentence, the State authorities remanded him to state custody and imposed a sentence on the grounds of parole violation. With regard to that sentence, Petitioner was credited with all prior custody credits.
Upon Petitioner's aforesaid arrest, the primary jurisdiction vested with the State, which necessitated his temporarily release to the federal authorities on June 4, 1998, pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. On June 21, 1999, Petitioner was sentenced, in this District, to 198-month term of imprisonment; his sentencing order unambiguously directed that Petitioner's federal term of imprisonment should run consecutively to his then-served State term of imprisonment imposed on the grounds of his parole violation.
On April 7, 2000, the State paroled Petitioner into federal custody, and his federal term began running. The Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") did not award Petitioner any prior custody credit because it had already been credited against his State sentence.
Upon his federal incarceration, Petitioner filed numerous actions challenging, inter alia, his state sentence (these challenges were raised by means of four different applications for a writ of error coram nobis, see Goodman v. Menifee, Civil Action No. 02-4156 (GEB) (D.N.J.); Goodman v. USA, Civil Action No. 04-4746 (GEB) (D.N.J.); Goodman v. USA, Civil Action No. 09-4800 (GEB) (D.N.J.); and Goodman v. United States, Civil Action No. 09-6570 (GEB) (D.N.J.), and were denied for lack of jurisdiction).
Starting from December 18, 2008, Petitioner began filing formal administrative grievances seeking to credit his federal term with the custody credit already awarded to him for the purposes of his state sentence, although these grievances stated, for the reasons not entirely clear to this Court, that Petitioner's credit should be due for the period running from March 25, 1999, to April 7, 2000 (i.e., the date when his federal sentence began running). Petitioner asserted that this credit was due to him because he had become "eligible" for parole on his State term (imposed as a result of his parole violation) on March 25, 1999. See Docket Entry No. 6-2, at 17, 20, 22.
Having these requests for administrative remedy denied at all three levels of the BOP, Petitioner filed the Petition at bar raising, initially, the same challenges.
Respondent's answer asserted that Petitioner's application was without merit since: (a) the credit Petitioner was referring-to was already awarded against his state sentence; and (b) the fact of when Petitioner became "eligible" for parole from his state sentence into federal custody was of no relevance to the BOP's calculation of Petitioner's term.
Being served with Respondent's answer, Petitioner qualitatively changed his position, raising an argument not presented for administrative review at any level of the BOP. Specifically, he:
(a) partly revived his coram nobis challenges to the state sentence (asserting that the actual sentence he served in state custody exceeded the sentence that he believed he should have served)*fn1 in order to conflate them with his assertion that his federal sentence should have been deemed started when he became "eligible" under his State sentence; but simultaneously (b) conceded that his federal term of imprisonment commenced on the date when he was actually received in the federal custody; and yet still simultaneously (c) asserted that he should have been awarded Barden credit for the period ...