United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
P. Jordan III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
closed criminal case is before the Court on Defendant Mark J.
Calhoun's Motion  seeking an adjustment to his
sentence to account for time he spent on home detention
between his jury trial and surrender into federal custody.
While his submissions to the Court appear to raise several
different issues, in his reply, Calhoun clarifies that
“[t]he ‘ONLY' issue before the Court is the
question of prior custody credit.” Def.'s Reply
 at 1. For the reasons that follow, Calhoun's motion
Facts and Procedural History
21, 2009, Calhoun was charged with 25 counts-including wire
fraud and money laundering-related to the procurement of
mortgage loans from various lenders. On May 27, 2009, the
Court granted Calhoun an unsecured bond of $10, 000.
trial began on February 22, 2010. Three days later, on
February 25, the Court found that Calhoun inappropriately
spoke with a juror. It therefore modified the conditions of
release and placed Calhoun on home confinement with
electronic monitoring. Under the Court's Order, Calhoun
was “restricted to [his] residence at all times except
for employment; education; religions services; medical,
substance abuse, or mental health treatment; attorney visits;
court appearances; court-ordered obligations; or other
activities pre-approved by the pretrial services office or
supervising officer.” Order Setting Conditions of
Release  ¶ 8(s)(ii).
8, 2011, the Court sentenced Calhoun to serve 200 months,
despite a guideline range of life imprisonment. The Court
further ordered him to self-surrender at the designated
institution by noon on August 1, 2011. Calhoun remained under
the Court's home-detention order until he reported to
begin serving his term of incarceration.
March 25, 2019-less than 92 months into his 200-month
sentence-Calhoun filed the present motion. He asks the Court
to modify his imposed term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) to give him credit for the time served on
pre-incarceration home detention. Mot. . He
alternatively asks the Court to “appoint petitioner
an attorney to assist in preparing a proper [§]
3582(c) Motion.” Id. at 1. Calhoun also
submitted a letter  in support, and the Court directed
the Government to respond. The Government filed its response
, and Calhoun filed a reply .
says the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) denied
his request to credit his approximately 17 months of home
confinement “due to their interpretation of the
language of the controlling statute.” Mot.  at 2.
That statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), states
[a] defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a
term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official
detention prior to the date the sentence commences-(1) as a
result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed; or
(2) as a result of any other charge for which the defendant
was arrested after the commission of the offense for which
the sentence was imposed[-]that has not been credited against
Government correctly observed, “the district court
lacks the authority to award or deny credit” under this
statute. In re United States Bureau of Prisons, Dep't
of Justice, 918 F.3d 431, 439 (5th Cir. 2019). And the
BOP was correct to conclude that Calhoun “was not
statutorily eligible for credit for the time he spent in home
confinement.” Paul v. Bragg, 454 Fed.Appx.
380, 381 (5th Cir. 2011).
obtain credit for that time, Calhoun asks the Court to modify
his sentence, presumably from 200 months down to 183
months. The Court does have such authority under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), which provides:
court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been