The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
SANDY DE LOS SANTOS,
Petitioner,
v. Case No: 5:24-cv-148-JSS-PRL
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN-LOW,
Respondent.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. 1.) He
claims that he is entitled to immediate release under the First Step Act (FSA). (Id. at
7.) Respondent contends that Petitioner is ineligible to apply his FSA credits because
he is subject to a final order of removal. (Dkt. 5 at 2.) An evidentiary hearing is
unnecessary because Petitioner’s claim requires no further factual development. See
Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1275 (11th Cir. 2003). For the reasons outlined below,
the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1) is dismissed.
Petitioner is serving a 36-month sentence at Coleman Federal Correctional
Complex for possessing with intent to distribute cocaine on board a vessel, in violation
of 46 U.S.C. § 70503. (See Case No. 4:21cr76-EWH-RJK-2 (E.D. Va.) (Criminal
Case), Dkt. 64 at 2.) Petitioner moved to modify his term of imprisonment under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Criminal Case, Dkt. 69.) The Eastern District of Virginia denied
the motion. (Criminal Case, Dkt. 72.) Petitioner then filed his petition for writ of
habeas corpus with this court. (See Dkt. 1 at 8.) He asserts one ground for relief: that
the Bureau of Prisons wrongfully revoked his FSA credits because he is subject to a
final order of removal. (Id. at 6.) He claims that he is not subject to a final order of
removal, and he requests an order instructing the Bureau of Prisons to reinstate his
FSA credits. (Id. at 6–7.)
Habeas corpus is the “exclusive remedy” for prisoners seeking “‘immediate or
speedier release’ from confinement.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 525 (2011)
(quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)). A section 2241 petition furnishes
a basis to challenge the execution, rather than the validity, of the sentence. See
McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1129 (11th Cir. 2017)
(en banc). Petitioner claims entitlement to FSA credits that would result in a shortened
sentence and his immediate release. (See Dkt. 1.) Therefore, his claim is properly
brought under section 2241.
Under the FSA, federal prisoners may earn and apply time credits to any
remaining custody or supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A), (C). However, a
prisoner who is “the subject of a final order of removal under any provision of the
immigration laws” is ineligible to apply time credits. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i). In
addition, Bureau of Prisons regulations provide that “any inmate eligible to earn FSA
[t]ime [c]redits” who is “[s]ubject to a final order of removal under immigration laws”
of the United States “may not apply FSA [t]ime [c]redits toward prerelease custody or
early transfer to supervised release.” 28 C.F.R. § 523.44(a)(2).
Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1182(a)(7)(A)@D and 1225(b)(1). (Dkt. 5-1 at 2.) The final order of removal
renders Petitioner ineligible to apply FSA credits to his sentence. Although Petitioner
states that to his knowledge, “he has never had a [f]inal [o|rder of [d]eportation entered
against him,” (Dkt. 1-1 at 1), the court credits the order of removal filed by
Respondent, (Dkt. 5-1 at 2).
Accordingly:
1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and
to close this case.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on October 17, 2024.
Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Parties
Counsel of Record
-3-