Venetucci v. LeMaster

1

DAVID VENETUCCI, Petitioner, v. DAVID LeMASTER, Warden, Respondent.

CIVIL No. 22-cv-00075-GFVT

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Ashland

September 13, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Gregory F. Van Tatenhove United States District Judge

Petitioner David Venetucci (formerly known as David Mullins) is a federal prisoner currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”)-Ashland, located in Ashland, Kentucky. Proceeding without an attorney Venetucci has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the calculation of his sentence by the federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). [R. 8.] Warden David LeMaster has filed his Response to the petition [R. 15] and Venetucci has filed a Reply. [R. 19.]

I

On February 15, 2010, Venetucci was arrested in Chicopee Massachusetts by state authorities for Assault to Rape and two counts of Assault and Battery by Dangerous Weapon in Case No. 10-0315. [R. 15 at p. 2]^[1] On October 5, 2011, Venetucci was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 5-7 years, with 597 days of jail credit. [Id.]

While in Massachusetts state custody, Venetucci was charged in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont on July 29, 2011, for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. [Id.; see also United States v. Mullins Case No. 2:11-cr-103-WKS (D. Vermont 2011).] On October 25, 2011, Venetucci was “borrowed” from Massachusetts State custody pursuant to a federal Writ of Habeas Corpus ad prosequendum for purposes of making an initial appearance before the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. [Id.] These federal charges were dismissed on November 28, 2012, and Venetucci was returned to Massachusetts state custody on January 8, 2013. [R. 15 at p. 2-3]

On December 19, 2013, an Indictment was issued in the United States District Court of Massachusetts charging Venetucci with Failure to Register as a Sex Offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). [R. 15 at p. 3; see also United States v. Venetucci, No. 13-CR-30044 (D. Mass. 2013).] Because Venetucci was still in state custody in Massachusetts, he appeared in federal court pursuant to multiple Writs of Habeas Corpus ad prosequendum, and each time remanded back to state custody. Id. at R. 7, 9, 36. 37, 43, 52. On October 30, 2014, Venetucci was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 71 months, to be served consecutive to any state sentence. Id. at R. 55, 56. That same day, Venetucci was returned to the primary custody of the State of Massachusetts, with the federal judgment lodged as a detainer. [R. 15 at p. 3.]

On August 24, 2016, prior to the end of Venetucci's state sentence, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a petition pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123A, § 12, requesting that Venetucci be civilly committed as a Sexually Dangerous Person (“SDP”).^[2] Venetucci, 153 N.E.3d at 423. As explained more fully by the Appeals Court of Massachusetts:

Having been notified of the impending end of Venetucci's Massachusetts sentence, the Commonwealth filed its SDP petition on August 24, 2016, which was approximately two weeks before his scheduled release. An order of temporary commitment was issued on August 30, 2016, and following a hearing, a Superior Court judge found probable cause that Venetucci met the criteria of an SDP and continued his temporary commitment pending trial. On August 2, 2017, while Venetucci remained at the Massachusetts Treatment Center (treatment center), the United States Marshal filed a detainer seeking to secure custody of him prior to his release.

Through both a pretrial motion to dismiss and motions for a directed verdict filed at the close of the Commonwealth's case and renewed at the close of all the evidence, Venetucci argued that the SDP petition was untimely in light of the fact that he could not be released into the community until after he served his Federal sentence, which would not occur for at least another five years. The judge rejected this argument, explaining her reasoning in a memorandum of decision and order that she issued following the trial. She adjudicated Venetucci an SDP and entered judgment committing him to the treatment center for an indefinite period of time. At the time of oral argument, he remained there still, and had yet to begin serving his Federal sentence.

Venetucci, 153 N.E.3d at 423-24 (emphasis added).

On September 9, 2016, Venetucci was released from his Massachusetts State sentence to Civil Commitment by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. [R. 15 at p. 3.] While civilly committed, Venetucci appealed the Massachusetts Superior Court's adjudication and his civil commitment to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts. On appeal, Venetucci argued both that the SDP petition was untimely and that “allowing the SDP process to delay indefinitely his ability to serve his Federal sentence is fundamentally unfair and could result in his serving many additional years of confinement.” Venetucci, 153 N.E.3d at 424.^[3] The Appeals Court recognized that Venetucci's argument regarding his federal sentence “presents a conundrum,” but concluded that it was one that it need not resolve because it found that the SDP petition was untimely. Id. at 424-425. Accordingly, in a decision issued on August 11, 2020, the Appeals Court vacated the Superior Court's judgment and remanded the case for entry of judgment dismissing the Commonwealth's SDP petition as untimely. Id. at 428. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts denied appellate review of the Appeals Court's decision on October 22, 2020. Commonwealth v. Venetucci, 486 Mass. 1106, 157 N.E.3d 605 (2020).

On October 29, 2020, Venetucci was released from his state Civil Commitment to the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to commence the service of his 71-month federal sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. [R. 15 at p. 3-4.] Venetucci's sentence computation prepared by the BOP commences his 71-month federal sentence on October 29, 2020, the date that he was released to the custody of the USMS. [Id. at p. 4.] It awards him prior custody credit for his time spent in custody from August 2, 2009, through November 11, 2009, as this credit was not applied to any other sentence. [Id.] According to this sentence computation, Venetucci's projected release date is August 3, 2025. [R. 15-1]

II

In his § 2241 petition, Venetucci challenges the BOP's sentence computation, arguing that he is entitled to credit from September 9, 2016 (the date that his he was released from his Massachusetts state sentence to civil commitment by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) until October 29, 2020 (the date that he was released to the custody of the USMS). According to Venetucci, because the Appeals Court of Massachusetts overturned the Superior Court's Judgment of Civil Commitment, he was held from September 9, 2016, through October 29, 2020, “without being under a sentence,” thus this time should be credited towards his federal sentence. [R. 8.]

In Response, Respondent argues that Venetucci did not begin to serve his federal sentence until the Commonwealth of Massachusetts relinquished primary custody over him. [R. 15.] According to Respondent, Massachusetts retained primary custody over Venetucci from the time that it arrested him on February 15, 2010, until it officially relinquished jurisdiction over him on October 29, 2020 (the date that Venetucci was released from his state civil commitment to the USMS to commence the service of his federal sentence). [R. 15 at p. 6-7.] Respondent further argues that Venetucci is not entitled to custody credit on his federal sentence for the time that he spent in civil commitment because that time was not spent in “official detention” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). [Id. at p. 7-8.]

In his Reply, Venetucci disputes that he is seeking “credit towards his federal sentence for time held in civil commitment by the state of Massachusetts [only] from September 9, 2016, to October 29, 2020,” claiming that he instead asks for “appropriate earned jail credit due” because his civil commitment time (from September 9, 2016, to October 29, 2020) did not apply to another sentence. [R. 19 at p. 1.]^[4] Thus, according to Venetucci, “the issue before the Court is a question of who held sovereignty over Petitioner from September 9, 2016, to October 29, 2020.” [Id.] Venetucci also argues that BOP Program Statement 5880.28, Sentence Computation Manual (“CCCA”) of 1984, which provides that “[t]ime spent serving a civil contempt sentence prior to trial and/or sentencing does not constitute presentence time credit toward the sentence that is eventually imposed,” does not apply because he was not held in civil contempt. [Id. at p. 4-5.] Finally, he contends that the BOP's computation of his federal sentence is a serious miscarriage of justice causing irreparable harm. [Id. at p. 5-6.]^[5]

A

After full consideration of Venetucci's § 2241 petition and the pleadings filed by the parties, the Court concludes that Venetucci's § 2241 petition must be denied. Calculation of a federal prisoner's sentence, including both its commencement date and any credits for custody before the sentence is imposed, is determined under 18 U.S.C. § 3585. With respect to the commencement date of a sentence § 3585(a) provides:

(a) A sentence to a term of imprisonment commences on the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting transportation to, or arrives voluntarily to commence service of sentence at, the official detention facility at which the sentence is to be served.

18 U.S.C. § 3585(a).

In this case, Venetucci was received in federal custody to commence service of his federal sentence on October 29, 2020....