Argued: September 25, 2018
from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02227-FL)
Lineberry, Kendall Burchard, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF
LAW, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
Michael Bredenburg, BUREAU OF PRISONS, Butner, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Stephen L. Braga, Appellate Litigation Clinic, UNIVERSITY OF
VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF L A W, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
J. Higdon, United States Attorney, Joshua Royster, Chief,
Civil Division, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
GREGORY, CHIEF JUDGE
Anthony Wayne Mangum appeals the district court's denial
of his motion to compel the federal Bureau of Prisons
("BOP") to comply with this Court's mandate in
Mangum v. Hallembaek, 824 F.3d 98 (4th Cir. 2016).
In that case, Mangum had appealed the district court's
denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his federal sentence.
Specifically, Mangum's petition challenged the refusal of
the BOP to designate nunc pro tunc a state facility
for service of his federal sentence under 18 U.S.C. §
3621(b). See Mangum, 824 F.3d at 99. This
designation would have effectively run Mangum's federal
and state sentences concurrently rather than consecutively,
allowing him to credit the time he spent in state prison
serving his state sentence toward the previously imposed
federal sentence that he had not yet served.
Court agreed with Mangum and held that the BOP abused its
discretion in denying his request for nunc pro tunc
designation under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). We therefore
vacated in part the district court's judgment and
instructed the court on remand to return the matter to the
BOP so that the agency could consider Mangum's request
again, this time in a manner consistent with the views
expressed in this Court's opinion. See Mangum,
824 F.3d at 103. On remand, the BOP denied Mangum's
request for a second time in a decision that contradicts this
Court's mandate in Mangum. Because the BOP
failed to comply with our mandate, we reverse the district
court's denial of Mangum's motion to compel
compliance and remand this matter once again. The district
court on remand shall enter an order directing the BOP to
reconsider Mangum's request for nunc pro tunc
designation in light of this opinion.
February 2006, Mangum was indicted for conspiracy to
distribute cocaine base in the Middle District of North
Carolina. Mangum, 824 F.3d at 99. A few months
later, in June 2006, Oklahoma state authorities arrested
Mangum and charged him with felony assault and battery with a
dangerous weapon, misdemeanor possession of a fictitious
driver's license, misdemeanor resisting an officer, and
misdemeanor obstructing an officer. Id. In August, a
federal magistrate judge requested that Oklahoma transfer
Mangum to federal custody for his North Carolina proceedings.
Id. at 100. Mangum ultimately pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced to
262 months' imprisonment and a five-year term of
supervised release. Id. During sentencing, the
district court did not state whether the federal sentence was
to be served concurrently with or consecutive to any other
sentence of imprisonment that might result if Mangum were
convicted of other offenses in a separate proceeding.
the federal proceedings, Mangum was returned to Oklahoma
custody in October 2007. He pleaded guilty to the four state
charges and was sentenced concurrently to terms of ten years
on count one, seven years on count two, and one year each for
counts three and four. Id. The state court
specifically ordered that the state sentences run
concurrently with the previously imposed federal sentence.
remained in Oklahoma custody while serving his state
sentences. He was paroled to a federal detainer on January
13, 2011, and the BOP, in preparing a sentence computation
for Mangum, determined that his service of the federal
sentence began on this date. Id.
January 3, 2013, Mangum requested that the BOP consider
whether to designate nunc pro tunc the Oklahoma
prison where he served his state sentence as the place for
service of his federal sentence under 18 U.S.C. §
3621(b). Mangum, 824 F.3d at 100. The
fourth statutory factor the BOP considers in this analysis is
"any statement by the court that imposed the
sentence." 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4). The BOP thus
attempted to contact Mangum's federal sentencing court to
inquire whether the court intended to treat the federal
sentence as concurrent with or consecutive to the
subsequently imposed state sentence. Mangum, 824
F.3d at 100. The court never responded to this inquiry,
however, and the BOP went on to deny Mangum's nunc
pro tunc request after considering the other statutory
factors. Id. at 100-01. In declining to grant this
request, the BOP invoked the fourth factor and reasoned that
"the federal Judgment was silent on whether your
sentence should run consecutively or concurrently to any
other sentence. Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a),
'Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different
times run consecutively unless the court orders that the
terms are to run concurrently.'" Id. at 101
(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a)).
BOP's refusal to grant nunc pro tunc relief,
along with its sentencing computation, "effectively
determined that the previously imposed federal sentence would
be served consecutively to the later imposed state
sentence," even though "the clearly expressed
intent of the state sentencing court [was] that its sentence
be served concurrently with the federal sentence."
Id. Because of the BOP's decision, Mangum's
release date would be on or about January 14, 2030, rather
than June 15, 2025.
October 24, 2013, Mangum filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in the Eastern District of North Carolina,
seeking credit against his federal sentence for the time he
spent serving his state sentence from June 14, 2006, to
January 13, 2011. Id. The district court granted the
warden's motion for summary judgment, and Mangum
25, 2016, this Court vacated in part the district court's
judgment because it had "overlooked a two-pronged flaw
in the BOP's exercise of its broad discretion" in
denying Mangum's requested nunc ...