Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 914340
Summary Calendar.
Karl L. CANNON, Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.
May 19, 1992.
Appeal from the Determination of the United States Parole Commission.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
POLITZ, Chief Judge:
Karl L. Cannon appeals t he determination by the United States Parole Commission of his
release date for a Mexican-imposed sentence of incarceration. We vacate and remand for a
recomputation of that release date consistent with this opinion.
Background
Cannon was arrested in June 1988 in Miguel Aleman, Mexico while driving a mobile home
in which Mexican authorities found 386 kilograms of marihuana hidden in a false ceiling. Convicted
by a Mexican court he was fined and began to serve a sentence of 90 months imprisonment. In
August 1990 he was transferred to United States authorities pursuant to the Treaty on the Execution
of Penal Sentences, November 26, 1976, United States--Mexico 28 UST 7399; T.I.A.S. No. 8718.
In October a postsentence report was completed for United States authorities.
On February 27, 1991 a parole commission hearing was convened to set Cannon's release date
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4106A(b)(1)(A). Cannon waived counsel and admitted his offense. The
hearing examiners reviewed the record, presumptively including the Mexican report entitled "Seccion
De Vigilancia" which noted that by working 765 days Cannon had earned good time credit of 383

days. The examiners recommended that Cannon be released after serving 63 months and that he
receive a supervised release period of 27 months, for a total of the 90 months he had received from
the Mexican authorities. The Regional Parole Commission adopted the recommendation of the
hearing examiners. After delays and false starts we reinstated Cannon's appeal.
Analysis
Under 18 U.S.C. § 4106A the Parole Commission is to determine the release date for a
foreign-sentenced prisoner. That statute provides in pertinent part:
(b)(1)(A) The United States Parole Commission shall, without unnecessary delay,
determine a release date and a perio d and conditions of supervised release for an offender
transferred to the United States to serve a sentence of imprisonment, as though the offender
were convicted in a United States district court of a similar offense.
(B) In making such determination, the United States Parole Commission shall consider--
(i) any recommendation of the United States Probation Service, including any
recommendation as to the applicable guideline range; and
(ii) any documents provided by the transferring country;
relating to that offender.
Section 4106A(b)(1)(A). See Hansen v. United States Parole Com'n, 904 F.2d 306 (5th Cir.1990),
cert. denied, U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 765, 112 L.Ed.2d 784 (1991). In setting the release date the
Parole Commission is to follow the guidelines set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 4105, including those
contained in section 4105(c)(1):
The transferred offender shall be entitled to all credits for good time, for labor, or any
other credit toward service of the sentence which had been given by the transferring country
for time served as of the time of transfer. Subsequent to the transfer, the offender shall in
addition be entitled to credits toward service of sentence for satisfactory behavior, computed
on the basis of the time remaining to be served at the time of the transfer and at the rate
provided in sect ion 3624(b) of this title for a sentence of the length of the total sentence
imposed and certified by the foreign authorities. These credits shall be combined to provide
a release date for the offender pursuant to section 3624(a) of the title. [Emphasis added.]
It is apparent from the foregoing that good time credit must be a part of the formula when
the release date is determined. In Thorpe v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 902 F.2d 291 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 185, 112 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990), the Parole Commission considered
good time credits in setting the release date for transferred prisoners. Based on the foregoing, we
reject the government's suggestion that the issue of good time credits is solely within the domain of
the Bureau of Prisons. We likewise reject the contention that we are without jurisdiction herein for
18 U.S.C. § 4106A(b)(2)(A) pertinently provides:
A determination by the United States Parole Commission under this subsection may
be appealed to the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the offender is
imprisoned at the time of the determination of such Commission.
The Parole Commission failed to take into account the document issued by the government
of Mexico respecting the good time credits Cannon had earned prior to his transfer. It must do so.
In applying the Sentencing Guidelines as if Cannon were convicted of a similar offense in the United
States, the Commission computed an offense level of 24 and a criminal history category of I, resulting
in a guideline range of 5163 months imprisonment. This computation triggered U.S.S.G. §
5G1.1(b), which provides:
If application of the guidelines results in a sentence below the sentence required by
statute [or, imposed by the foreign court], the statutory minimum [or foreign sentence] shall
be the guideline sentence.
The Parole Commission is obliged to use the 90month sentence as the guideline sentence and
to then give credit for time served and good time credits earned on that sentence. It did not do so.
The decision of the Parole Commission is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for
recomputation of the release date giving due credit for all offsets, specifically including all good time
credits as reported by the Mexican authorities.