November 29, 2017
from the United States District Court for the Central
District of Illinois. No. 14-cv-01393 - Sara Darrow, Judge.
Wood, Chief Judge, and Ripple and Kanne, Circuit Judges.
Various statutes vest the Federal Bureau of Prisons
("BOP") with the authority to make decisions that
affect aspects of a federal inmate's sentence. In Jermel
Pope's case, the BOP used its authority to prolong his
federal sentence. Pope argues that the BOP erroneously
wielded that authority and asks that we reconsider the BOP
decisions that extended his sentence. Pope has completed his
term of imprisonment and is now serving a period of federal
supervised release, so we must also consider whether
Pope's habeas corpus petition is now moot because he is
no longer housed in a federal corrections facility.
February 8, 2008, Illinois state authorities arrested Jermel
Pope and charged him with pandering in violation of Illinois
law. While his state case was pending, a federal grand jury
returned an indictment against him for violating the federal
equivalent of the state pandering law. Both the state and
federal charges stemmed from the same events.
bounced back and forth between state and federal facilities
in order to appear in both the state and federal proceedings.
These transfers were always conducted under a writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum. Using this writ, a sovereign may take
temporary custody of a prisoner in the custody of another
sovereign, for the purpose of prosecution, without acquiring
10, 2009, a federal court sentenced Pope to 100 months'
imprisonment on the federal offense. And a few months later,
on August 24, 2009, an Illinois court sentenced him to five
years' imprisonment on the state charge.
August 31, 2009-shortly after the imposition of his state
sentence and over two months after the imposition of his
federal sentence-Pope was moved from an Illinois facility and
housed in a federal correctional center. Two hundred and
sixty-eight days later, on May 25, 2010, Pope was returned to
a state facility. These post-sentencing changes of custody
were not accompanied by a writ of habeas corpus ad
returned to a state facility on May 25, 2010, Pope then
remained at the state facility for the duration of his state
sentence. On August 6, 2010-two years and six months after
his arrest-Illinois paroled Pope. That same day Pope was
turned over to federal authorities.
the fact that the BOP had previously exercised custody over
Pope from August 31, 2009, to May 25, 2010, the BOP
calculated the start date of his federal sentence as August
6, 2010. The BOP also refused to give Pope credit for time
served that had already been credited to his state sentence.
Later, it also denied Pope's request that the BOP retro-
actively designate the Illinois prison where he served his
state sentence as his place of imprisonment for his federal
sentence. This retroactive designation would have, in effect,
run Pope's federal sentence concurrently with his state
challenges to the BOP's decisions have dragged on for
years. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Pope
filed this habeas corpus petition on September 29, 2014. Five
months later, the district court ordered the Government to
show cause why Pope's writ should not be granted. In
April 2015, the Government filed its response.
not until July 2016-21 months after Pope filed the petition
we now review, and 14 months after the Government filed its
response-that the district court returned to Pope's
petition. It granted the petition in part, ordering the BOP
to credit Pope 30 days. It denied all but one of Pope's
additional claims. Because the Government had failed to
respond to the substance of that final claim, the district
court gave the Government additional time to respond.
Finally, on December 13, 2016-over two years after Pope filed
initially-the district court denied the remainder of his
appealed. This Court set a briefing schedule to be completed
on September 13, 2017, and scheduled oral argument for
November 29, 2017. On November 24, 2017, the BOP released
Pope to begin serving his term of supervised release. Then,
two days before oral argument, the Government moved to
dismiss this case as moot. We now address that motion, as
well as the merits of Pope's 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition, which we review de novo, Brown v.
Caraway, 719 F.3d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 2013).
appeal stems from the BOP's position that Pope should
serve his federal sentence consecutively rather than
concurrently with his state sentence. To ensure that end, the
BOP commenced Pope's federal sentence only after he was
paroled by Illinois despite the fact that Pope had already
spent months in a BOP facility. It also denied his request
for a retroactive designation. Finally, it ...