BROWN v. WARDEN
| CEDRICK BROWN |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and WARDEN |
| 2:2017cv00146 |
| April 3, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Terre Haute Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| William T. Lawrence |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
18
Entry Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - Cedric Brown seeks a writ of habeas corpus based on his contention that the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has improperly computed his federal sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama in No. 3:08-CR-00053-MEF ("the federal sentence"). Brown has not replied to the government's explanation, which the Court finds to be entirely i n accord with both the facts and the controlling law. Brown has failed to show that the BOP has miscalculated the federal sentence or has improperly denied him credit toward that sentence. Accordingly, Brown has likewise failed to show that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/17/2017.(RSF)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
