# Ranalli v. Baltazar

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · April 28, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10408661

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 28, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10408661

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AUGUST RANALLI, :
Petitioner, : 1:17-cv-1782
:
v. : Hon. John E. Jones III
:
WARDEN BALTAZADR :
Respondent. :

MEMORANDUM
April 28, 2020
Petitioner August Ranalli (“Ranalli”), a federal inmate in the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) currently serving a sentence of 144 months
imprisonment for Conspiracy to Distribute 280 Grams of Cocaine Base, Cocaine
and Heroin, and Distribution of 280 Grams of Cocaine Base, Cocaine and Heroin,
imposed on March 16, 2016, in United States District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania Criminal Case 1:12-CR-310-01, files the instant petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the BOP’s prior
custody computation pursuant to Program Statement 5880.28 and 18 U.S.C. §
3585(b) and seeking a nunc pro tunc designation so that he may receive federal
credit while in “pre-trial detention.” (Doc. 1; Doc. 1-1; Doc. 9-1, pp. 13-22).
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 29, 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order denying
Ranalli’s petition with respect to the request for credit pursuant to program
statement 5880.28 and 18 USC § 3585(b) on the merits, and denied without
prejudice his request for a nunc pro tunc designation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3621(b) based on his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Docs. 12,
13). Ranalli sought reconsideration. (Doc. 14).
On March 11, 2020, the Court granted Ranalli’s motion for reconsideration

based on the BOP’s representation that Petitioner had, in fact, exhausted his
administrative remedies concerning the nunc pro tunc designation pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3621(b) prior to commencing this action. (Doc. 20, p. 1). The Court also
afforded Ranalli the opportunity to reply to Respondents’ declaration of a

Correctional Program Specialist at the Designation and Sentence Computation
Center (“DSCC”) indicating that, on January 22, 2020, he undertook review and
audit of Petitioner’s sentence. (Doc. 20-1, p. 1, ¶¶ 1, 4). (Doc. 21). Ranalli filed

his reply on April 13, 2020. (Doc. 24).
For the reasons that follow, the Court will vacate the prior Memorandum and
Order in its entirety and deny the petition.
I. BACKGROUND

On July 11, 2011, Pennsylvania state officials paroled Ranalli from his three
to six-year sentence of imprisonment for Drug, Manufacture/Sale/Deliver or
Possess With Intent, imposed on August 6, 2007, in Court of Common Pleas of

2
York County Case Number CR-1997-2007. (Doc. 20-1, Declaration of Forest
Kelly, Correctional Programs Specialist employed by the BOP at the Designation

and Sentence Computation Center, ¶ 6; pp. 1, 2). On November 28, 2012, while on
parole, he was arrested by the Pennsylvania State Police. (Id.). He faced both state
and federal charges. (Id.). On November 29, 2012, the Pennsylvania Board of

Probation and Parole (“PBPP”) issued a warrant to commit and detain him for
violating his parole. (Id.; Doc. 20-1, p. 12).
He was indicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania on December 12, 2012, of intentionally and knowingly possessing

with intent to distribute and distribute 280 Grams of Cocaine Base in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), which was followed by a superseding indictment. See
electronic docket, 1:12-CR-310-01, https://ecf.pamd.circ3.dcn. At some point in

2013, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania charged him with Manufacture,
Delivery, or Possession with Intent to Manufacture or Deliver in Court of Common
Pleas of York County Case Number CP-67-CR-0004728-2013. (Doc. 9-1, p. 9).
On January 4, 2013, the PBPP recorded a “Notice of Board Decision”

indicating that a decision was made to “Detain Pending Disposition of Criminal
Charges. (Arrested 11/28/2012 by PA State Police).” (Doc. 20-1, p. 12). A
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Sentence Status Summary generated on

3
March 29, 2013, contains the remarks “Issued to report PVP status and USMS
detainer. Held as state parole violator pending PBPP action, as per PBPP-141

Warrant # 610820120146, dated 11-29-2012. USMS detainer lodged on federal
charge as indicated in section 5. No other change to previously-certified
computation for PA-DOC sentence, except for PVP status.” (Id. at 15).

Ultimately, on May 7, 2015, the state charges in Court of Common Pleas of
York County Case Number CP-67-CR-0004728-2013, were nol prossed in favor of
the federal prosecution. (Doc. 20-1, p. 2, n.1; Doc. 9-1, p. 10). Therefore, on May
24, 2013, the date on which the maximum sentence date applicable to the sentence

imposed in Court of Common Pleas of York County Case Number CR-1997-2007
expired, state officials released him to federal custody pursuant to the federal
detainer. (Doc. 9-1, p. 2, ¶¶ 6, 7, pp. 6, 13, 14; Doc. 20-1, ¶ 7; p. 1).

Following a bench trial, on April 20, 2015, Ranalli was found guilty of the
federal charges. See electronic docket, 1:12-CR-310-01, https://ecf.pamd.circ3.dcn.
On March 16, 2016, the Honorable Yvette Kane sentenced him to a term of 144
months of imprisonment, to be served concurrently to any parole revocation

sentence imposed in Court of Common Pleas of York County Case Number CR-
1997-2007. (Id. at p. 2, ¶ 8, pp. 16-21). The following exchange took place at the
sentencing:

4
THE COURT: Okay. I have a question for you, Mr. Lord, before I turn
to Mr. Consiglio on this. I want to be updated on the status of the parole
revocation in York County. Is that still pending, and what is Mr.
Ranalli’s exposure there?

MR. LORD: I talked to Ben Kimmel. And I don't know how to spell
his name. He and I spoke on the telephone, and I told him what Mr.
Ranalli was looking at. And he said there were two things possibly. He
could get up to 18 months, or it may end up that because he gets so
much time, they're going to close the case out. He's inclined to think
they'll close the case out if he gets the significant amount of time that
we’re talking about here, but he couldn't guarantee me anything. He
said, I have to go to my superiors and make a decision. So at this point
his green sheet, as they get from the SCI, says he’s looking at 18
months. Will he get that? We don’t know.

THE COURT: So some of the time that he has already served would be
credited to York County, wouldn't it?

MR. LORD: No.

THE COURT: To the parole rev? No.

MR. LORD: Well, what happened was, he got arrested November 28
of 2012 on the York County charges.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. LORD: Then the federal government became the primary
custodian after the state charges were nolle prossed. The state parole
detainer wasn’t filed until after Mr. Ranalli was convicted. It was filed
in June of 2015. So the primary custodian is the federal government,
number one, U.S. Marshal, Attorney General, but, number two, even
though he’s been in jail since November 28 of 2012, in that the York
County case was dismissed, I don't know if he’s going to get any credit.

THE COURT: Let us turn to the experts.

5
MR. LORD: Crystal Bard is the expert. Maybe she can –

PROBATION OFFICER: Your Honor, my thoughts would be that’s all
federal time. He’s a federal prisoner. He was incarcerated on a related
charge for a federal offense.

THE COURT: Okay.

PROBATION OFFICER: He has a detainer pending from state parole.
They're holding him delinquent for control because his case did expire.
So he would be a federal prisoner, and then depending on the outcome
of everything else, he would eventually go to that detainer. But he
should get credit from the time he’s been in custody with us.

THE COURT: So I should anticipate that the Bureau of Prisons would
give him credit from November 29th, 2012?

PROBATION OFFICER: That is my understanding based on how
things have worked, yes. And he is our prisoner now, so this would all
be federal time.

MR. LORD: The original indictment was December 12th, so from
November 28 to December 12, I don't know what the Bureau of Prisons
is going to do about that.

PROBATION OFFICER: The Bureau of Prisons will give him credit
for the federal sentence, unless it’s credited towards something else.
But seeing that he’ll be a federal prisoner first, they have first dibs at
all credit time.

THE COURT: So the parole revocation would be stayed pending the
sentence, or would there be an adjudication with a number to be served
at the back end of the federal sentence?

MR. LORD: My understanding is that once he’s sentenced here, they're
going to make a decision.

THE COURT: Okay.
6
MR. LORD: The conviction is the driving force behind the revocation.
So they’re going to make a decision about what to give him, up to 18
months, or if they’re going to impose it at all.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. LORD: So, I'm sorry, Your Honor, we don't know what’s going to
happen. He may not get anything, he may get 18 months, he may get
something in between.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, normally the guidelines suggest that the
sentence should be consecutive, so that’s why I’m interested in what’s
out there.

(Doc. 20-1, pp. 82-85). Judge Kane then imposed the following sentence:
THE COURT: Counsel, having considered all of the 3553(a) factors,
pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it’s the judgment of the
court that the defendant, August Ranalli, is hereby committed to the
custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 144
months. This sentence consists of a sentence of 144 months on each of
Counts 1 and 2 to run concurrently with each other and concurrently to
any state parole revocation sentence that’s imposed in York County,
Docket Number CR-1997-2007.

(Id. at pp. 92, 93).
The PBPP issued a “Notice of Board Decision” on June 6, 2016, referencing
Ranalli’s federal sentence and a decision to “Take No Further Action” on the
convicted parole violator warrant. (Id. at 13).
In computing Ranalli’s sentence, the BOP credited him with a prior custody
credit of 1026 days which encompassed the date on which he was taken into
7
federal custody pursuant to the federal detainer, May 25, 2013, to the day prior to
the federal court sentencing date, March 15, 2016. (Id. at p. 2, ¶ 7).

II. DISCUSSION
A federal habeas court may only extend a writ of habeas corpus to a federal
inmate if he demonstrates that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Ranalli states that he “was informed by the judge and the federal probation
officer that [his] federal sentence would begin from November 29th 2012, the date
of [his] arrest. On March 16, 2016 [he] was sentenced to a 144 month

imprisonment, however the B.O.P. did not fully credit [him] for the time [he]
served prior to the imposition of [his] sentence.” (Doc. 1-1, p. 1). He does not
agree with the BOP’s position that he could not receive credit for this time

pursuant to program statement 5880.28 and 18 USC § 3585(b). (Id.). He seeks
credit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621, and BOP Policy Statement 5160.05,
“Designation of state institution for service of federal service,” which allow the
BOP to designate the state institution as a place of confinement to serve his federal

sentence. (Id.).
A. 18 U.S.C. § 3585
Section 3585, which governs prior custody credit, provides:

8
(a) Commencement of sentence.– 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.

(b) Credit for prior custody.– 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 another sentence.

18 U.S.C. § 3585.
The record indicates that the conclusion reached by Ranalli’s attorney and
the United States Probation Office during the federal sentencing proceeding, that
there was no parole detainer in place from the date of arrest until the date on which
Ranalli’s state sentence in Court of Common Pleas of York County Case Number
CR-1997-2007 expired, is in error.
In cases where a parolee is charged with new charges for violation of the
laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the new charges constitute a 15–day
automatic detainer on the parolee. 61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(b)(1)–(2). Once the 15–day
period lapses, however, the automatic detainer dissolves and the decision of
9
whether to maintain or lift a detainer on the parolee is within the discretion of the
Board. 61 Pa. C.S. § 6138(b)(2); 37 Pa. Code § 63.3 (“If the parolee violates the

conditions of parole, at a time during his period on parole, the Board may cause his
detention or return to a correctional institution.”); Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of
Probation and Parole, 840 A.2d 299, 303 (Pa. 2003) (“where a parolee is arrested

while on parole, the Board is permitted, at its discretion, to place a detainer against
the parolee that will ‘prevent the parolee from making bail pending the disposition
of the new charges or other action of the court.’ ”); Moss v. Pennsylvania Bd. of
Prob. & Parole, No. 356 M.D. 2017, 2018 WL 1936639, at *3 (Pa. Commw. Ct.

Apr. 25, 2018). The record clearly indicates that Ranalli was held as a state parole
violator pending PBPP action, as per PBPP-141 Warrant # 610820120146, dated
11-29-2012. ( Doc. 20-1, p. 15). Hence, from the date of arrest until the date his

2007 state court sentence expired, May 24, 2013, the state was the primary
custodian pursuant to the PBPP detainer. The record further reflects that the
United States Marshal’s Service did not lodge its federal detainer until January 15,
2013.

It is also obvious from the chronology that the PBPP detainer referred to at
sentencing would have been the convicted parole violator warrant, a warrant that
could not have been lodged until after his federal conviction.

10
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the BOP properly granted
him 1026 days of prior custody credit between May 25, 2013, the date he was

transferred to federal custody, and March 15, 2016, the last day before the
imposition of his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Ranalli has been
afforded all credit due pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585; no relief is warranted. The

petition will be denied to the extent that Ranalli seeks relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3585.
B. 18 U.S.C. § 3621
If the inmate is in the primary custody of the state and the federal

sentencing court orders that he serve his federal sentence concurrently with any
state sentence, the BOP will return custody of the inmate to the state, commence
the federal sentence, and designate the state facility as the place of service of the

federal sentence pursuant to its authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Under that
provision, the BOP has discretion to retroactively designate a state prison to be the
place of commencement of a federal sentence. See also BOP Program Statement
5160.05, Designation of State Institution for Service of Federal Sentence.

Specifically, the BOP designates the state correctional institution (the primary
custodian) for service of the federal sentence. Such retroactive designation allows a
federal sentence to run concurrently with a state sentence as of the date a prisoner

11
is sentenced by the federal court. In making this determination, the BOP is
required to consider the following factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b): (1) resources

of the facility contemplated; (2) nature and circumstances of the offense; (3)
history and characteristics of the prisoner; (4) any statement by the court that
imposed the sentence; and (5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the

Sentencing Commission. Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478 (3d Cir. 1990);
Harris v. Zickefoose, 511 F. App’x 135, 137 (3d Cir. 2013). The BOP is afforded
“wide discretion” in consideration of such an application. Barden, 921 F. 2d at
482-83).

Significantly, 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) does not apply unless an inmate is in the
primary custody of the state at the time of federal sentencing. When sentenced in
federal court, Ranalli was in the primary custody of the BOP as his state court

sentence had fully expired. Hence, the BOP did not abuse its discretion in denying
his request for a nunc pro tunc designation.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court’s March 29, 2019 Memorandum

and Order (Docs. 12, 13) will be vacated in their entirety and the petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 will be denied.
A separate Order will enter.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10408661. Public record. Not legal advice.