green
Positive treatment
published
Quoted verbatim 3×
38.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Cited for
At page 212 Jurisdiction over sentence imposition and administrative exhaustion42 citing cases“exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional.”
- Lueth v. Beach, 498 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2007).published (holding that the exhaustion requirement in § 2241 is jurisdictional, but relying on a case addressing the exhaustion requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3585 (b))
- Amel Lueth v. Charles Beach, No. 06-1937 (8th Cir. Aug. 17, 2007).published But see Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (holding that the exhaustion requirement in § 2241 is jurisdictional, but relying on a case addressing the exhaustion requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3585 (b)).…
- Tennessee Valley Auth., Georgia Power Co., Intervenor v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, John H. Hankinson, Jr., Reg'l Adm'r, Alabama Power Co., Duke Energy Corp., Georgia Power Co., Intervenor v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, John H. Hankinson, Jr., Reg'l Adm'r, Tennessee Valley Auth., Georgia Power Co., Intervenor v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, John H. Hankinson, Jr., Reg'l Adm'r, Tennessee Valley Auth., Georgia Power Co., Intervenor v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, John H. Hankinson, Jr., Reg'l Adm'r, Alabama Power Co., Duke Energy Corp., Georgia Power Co., Intervenor v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, John H. Hankinson, Jr., Reg'l Adm'r, Tennessee Valley Auth., Georgia Power Co., Intervenor v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, John H. Hankinson, Jr., Reg'l Adm'r, Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Christine Todd Whitman, Adm'r, United States Env't Prot. Agency, United States Env't Prot. Agency, Alabama Power Co. v. Christine Todd Whitman, Adm'r, United States Env't Prot. Agency, United States Env't Prot. Agency, Tennessee Valley Pub. Power Ass'n, Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div., Elec. Power Bd. of Chattanooga v. Christine Todd Whitman, Adm'r, United States Env't Prot. Agency, United States Env't Prot. Agency, Duke Energy Corp. v. Christine Todd Whitman, Adm'r, United States Env't Prot. Agency, United States Env't Prot. Agency, 278 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2002).published (holding that "exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional" in context where an administrative agency — the Bureau of Prisons — is responsible for computation of sentences)
- Tennessee Valley Auth. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 278 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2002).published (holding that "exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional" in context where an administrative agency-the Bureau of Prisons-is responsible for computation of sentences)
- Meadows v. Yates, No. 2:22-cv-00181 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 4, 2023).(Courts have original jurisdiction over imposition of a sentence. The Bureau of Prisons is, however, responsible for computing that sentence and applying appropriate good time credit.)
- Brown v. Rieger, No. 2:22-cv-00259 (D. Me. Sept. 22, 2022).(Courts have original jurisdiction over imposition of a sentence. The Bureau of Prisons is, however, responsible for computing that sentence and applying appropriate good time credit.)
- Ivan Boz v. United States, 228 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2000).published (Exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional.)
- Lonich v. Carvajal (INMATE 3), No. 2:20-cv-00864 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 17, 2023).Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1992); see 28 C.F.R. § 542 .10–.19.
- Rand v. Sanders (INMATE 3), No. 2:20-cv-00783 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 3, 2023).Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1992); see 28 C.F.R. § 542 .10–.19.
- Hope v. Woods (INMATE 3), No. 2:18-cv-00239 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 3, 2021).Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1992); see 28 C.F.R. § 542 .10–.19.
Show 30 more citing cases
- Crandle v. Oliver, No. 1:17-cv-00562 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 23, 2018).The Eleventh Circuit has held that Reed Elsevier and similar subsequent Supreme Court authority “have undermined []to the point of abrogation” its prior precedent, announced in Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1992),…
- Israel Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467 (11th Cir. 2015).publishedSee Skinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir.2004); Winck v. England, 327 F.3d 1296, 1306 (11th Cir.2003); Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992); United States v. Lucas, 898 F.2d 1554, 1555 (11th Cir.1990); Un…
- Hiploito Cruz-Pagan v. Warden, FCC Coleman -Low, 486 F. App'x 77 (11th Cir. 2012).unpublished See Skinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir.2004) (per curiam); Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam).
- Gregory Alan Nichols v. Warden, FCC Coleman - Low, 458 F. App'x 844 (11th Cir. 2012).unpublishedGonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992).
- Gary Steven Krist v. Ike Eichenlaub, 386 F. App'x 920 (11th Cir. 2010).unpublished For purposes of § 2241 relief, “exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional.” Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992).
- Cornelius Martin, II v. Warden Michael Zenk, 244 F. App'x 974 (11th Cir. 2007).unpublished(holding that prisoner who was denied parole was required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a § 2241 petition)
- Jones v. Zenk, 495 F. Supp. 2d 1289 (N.D. Ga. 2007).publishedRespondent counters that such an exception is not available to Petitioner because the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly referred to the judicial requirement of exhaustion in § 2241 cases as “jurisdictional.” See Skinner, 355 F.3d at 1295 (st…
- United States v. Mario Luna-Mora, 180 F. App'x 847 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublished(addressing denial of a § 2241 petition)
- United States v. Arthur Lee Williams, 425 F.3d 987 (11th Cir. 2005).published(addressing denial of a § 2241 petition)
- David M. Winck, Jr. v. Gordon R. England, Julian E. Sallas, Richard G. Hoffman, John Ashcroft, Mac Cauley, 327 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2003).publishedGonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam).
- Francisco Pacheco-Camacho v. Robert Hood, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Sheridan Oregon, 272 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001).publishedThus, the Seventh Circuit has stated that “[t]he federal good time statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624 , makes it clear that it is the Bureau of Prisons, not the court, that determines whether a federal prisoner should receive good time credit.” Uni…
- Duke v. Thoms, 8 F. App'x 498 (6th Cir. 2001).unpublishedSee Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir.1993); Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1991); Little v. Hopkins, 638 F.2d 953, 953-54 (6th Cir.1981).
- United States v. Ricky Evans, 1 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 1993).publishedGonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992) (“Courts have original jurisdiction over imposition of a sentence.
- Ramirez v. FCI Otisville, No. 3:22-cv-00073 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 29, 2022).See Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (specifically rejecting the argument that exhaustion is unnecessary when a petitioner argues presumptive or imminent release), abrogated on other grounds, Santi…
- Garcia-Aguirre v. Stone, No. 3:22-cv-00053 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 22, 2022).See Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (specifically rejecting the argument that exhaustion is unnecessary when a petitioner argues presumptive or imminent release), abrogated on other grounds, Santi…
- Saint-Hilaire v. Stone, No. 3:22-cv-00071 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 22, 2022).See Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (specifically rejecting the argument that exhaustion is unnecessary when a petitioner argues presumptive or imminent release), abrogated on other grounds, Santi…
- Austin v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Designation & Sentencing Ctr., 529 F. App'x 994 (11th Cir. 2013).unpublishedSee Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992).
- United States v. Frosch, 496 F. Supp. 2d 1018 (S.D. Iowa 2007).publishedSee Gonzales v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992) (“Courts have original jurisdiction over imposition of a sentence.
- Frederick Hegney v. Carlyle I. Holder, 177 F. App'x 901 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublishedSee Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992).
- Franco Tinoco Jaimes v. United States, 168 F. App'x 356 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublishedSee Winck v. England, 327 F.3d 1296 , 1300 n. 1 (11th Cir.2003); Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam).
- Jeffery B. Hicks v. Martha L. Jordan, 165 F. App'x 797 (11th Cir. 2006).unpublishedSee Winck v. England, 327 F.3d 1296 , 1300 n. 1 (11th Cir.2003); Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam).
- Leslie v. United States, 89 F. App'x 960 (6th Cir. 2004).unpublishedSee Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992).
- Skinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2004).published(holding that prisoner who was denied parole was required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing § 2241 petition because “[ejxhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional)
- Wesley v. Lamanna, 27 F. App'x 438 (6th Cir. 2001).unpublishedSee Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992).
- Ivan Boz v. United States, 248 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).published(Exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional.)
- Gates-Bey v. United States Parole Comm'n, 9 F. App'x 308 (6th Cir. 2001).unpublishedSee Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992).
- Joseph Otero v. Daniel Dove, Warden, 23 F.3d 407 (6th Cir. 1994).publishedSee Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1991); Little v. Hopkins, 638 F.2d 953, 953-54 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam).
- Donnie Earl Carter v. Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Ashland United States Parole Comm'n, 7 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 1993).unpublishedSee Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1991); Little v. Hopkins, 638 F.2d 953, 954 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam).
- Lonnie Bernard Davis v. Warden, FCC Coleman - USP I, 661 F. App'x 561 (11th Cir. 2016).unpublishedSkinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), abrogated by Santiago-Lugo, 785 F.3d at 471, 474-75 , 474 n.5; see also Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam), abrogated by Santiago-…
- Graham v. Hawk, 857 F. Supp. 38 (W.D. Tenn. 1994).publishedSee also Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir.1992) (per curiam); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir.1991); Little v. Hopkins, 638 F.2d 953, 954 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ivan GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
91-5738.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 27, 1992.
Published opinion
Stephen Finta, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla., for petitioner-appellant., Dexter Lehtinen, Linda Collins Hertz, U.S. Attys., Dawn Bowen, and Carol Herman, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for respondent-appellee.
Tjoflat, Kravitch, Godbold.
Cited by 44 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
This appeal concerns denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus because petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. We affirm.
Petitioner Ivan Gonzalez was convicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute three kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On December 29, 1988 he was sentenced pursuant to pre-guidelines law to five years imprisonment and four years of supervised release. [1]
The U.S. Parole Commission calculated a presumptive parole date of May 30, 1990.[*212] The U.S. Bureau of Prisons did not, however, release petitioner on this date, and he remains incarcerated.
In February 1991 Gonzalez filed in the district court a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He asserted that because his presumptive release date had passed, he need not exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking relief from the district court.
Courts have original jurisdiction over imposition of a sentence. The Bureau of Prisons is, however, responsible for computing that sentence and applying appropriate good time credit. U.S. v. Martinez, 837 F.2d 861, 865-66 (9th Cir.1988). The Bureau of Prisons has established regulations that set forth the procedures that a prisoner must follow before seeking relief from a district court. U.S. v. Lucas, 898 F.2d 1554, 1556 (11th Cir.1990). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is jurisdictional. Id.
Petitioner relies upon cases in which the court resentenced a defendant. Those cases do not deal with computation of sentences by administrative agencies. See e.g., U.S. v. Whittington, 918 F.2d 149 (11th Cir.1990); U.S. v. Jones, 722 F.2d 632 (11th Cir.1983).
AFFIRMED.
1
. Gonzalez appealed his conviction, challenging the district court’s denial of his request for a[*212] supplemental jury instruction. He did not challenge his sentence. This court affirmed the conviction. U.S. v. Gonzalez, 886 F.2d 1324 (11th Cir. Aug. 28, 1989).