Sarabia v. Warden FCI Sandstone
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-00705
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
In Sarabia v. Warden FCI Sandstone, Judge Tunheim denied and dismissed with prejudice the petition of federal prisoner Felipe Cabrera Sarabia, who had argued that the Bureau of Prisons should calculate his good-conduct time credits based on a 230-month sentence rather than the 128-month sentence shown in his amended judgment.
Federal prisoners who have served time in foreign custody before being extradited to the United States and who seek to challenge how the Bureau of Prisons calculates their good-conduct time credits under the First Step Act of 2018, particularly where a sentencing court modified a sentence to reflect foreign custody credit on the face of the judgment.
What happened
In Sarabia v. Warden FCI Sandstone (Civil No. 25-705), Felipe Cabrera Sarabia, a prisoner at Federal Correctional Institution Sandstone in Minnesota, filed a petition challenging how the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) calculated his good-conduct time credits under the First Step Act of 2018. That law allows eligible prisoners to earn up to 54 days of credit per year off their sentence for good behavior. Cabrera argued he was sentenced to 230 months in prison and therefore should receive up to 1,035 days of such credits, not the 575 days the BOP awarded him based on a 128-month sentence.
The dispute traces back to Cabrera's 2023 guilty plea in the Northern District of Illinois on a federal drug trafficking charge. The sentencing judge initially announced a 230-month sentence, but then, at defense counsel's request and without objection from the government, the judge agreed to reduce that figure by 102 months to account for time Cabrera had already served in Mexico on a conviction that was later overturned. The final written Judgment and Conviction stated that the sentence was 128 months, explicitly noting that it included credit for the 102 months already served in Mexico. The BOP then calculated Cabrera's good-conduct credits based on that 128-month figure.
Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty had recommended denying the petition, and Judge Tunheim agreed, overruling Cabrera's objections, adopting the recommendation, denying the petition, and dismissing the case with prejudice (meaning it cannot be refiled). Judge Tunheim reasoned that the relevant measure for good-conduct time is the 'term of imprisonment' as stated in the judgment, which was 128 months. The court found that the written judgment was consistent with the sentencing judge's discernible intent and simply clarified what was imprecisely stated at the hearing. Because the BOP used the correct 128-month figure, its calculation of 575 days of good-conduct credits was proper.
The detailed version
- Sarabia v. Warden FCI Sandstone, Civil No. 25-705 (JRT/JFD), United States District Court, District of Minnesota
- John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge
- August 11, 2025
Procedural Posture
Petitioner Felipe Cabrera Sarabia, proceeding pro se (representing himself without a lawyer), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241—a federal statute allowing prisoners to challenge the legality of their imprisonment or its conditions in federal court. After Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending denial, Cabrera filed timely objections. Judge Tunheim conducted de novo (fresh, independent) review of the objected-to portions, overruled the objections, adopted the R&R, denied the petition, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Background Facts
In 2009, Cabrera was indicted in the Northern District of Illinois on drug trafficking charges. Mexican authorities arrested him in December 2011 in Mexico on charges arising from the same conduct. He remained detained in Mexico until June 2020, when his Mexican conviction was overturned by the Mexican Supreme Court. He was then extradited to the United States. In 2023, Cabrera pleaded guilty to distributing one kilogram or more of a heroin mixture in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
At sentencing, the Illinois district court calculated a U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of 292 to 365 months and initially announced a sentence of 230 months. The government then noted that, by statute, the BOP would eventually need to reduce the sentence to credit the 102 months Cabrera served in Mexico. The government offered two options: leave the judgment at 230 months and let the BOP apply the statutory credit later, or enter a judgment of 128 months (230 minus 102) reflecting the credit on the face of the judgment. Defense counsel requested the latter; the government did not object; and the court agreed. The Amended Judgment and Conviction (J&C) stated a sentence of '128 months,' with a note that it included 'credit for 102 months of custody already served in Mexico.'
Legal Issue
The First Step Act of 2018 entitles eligible prisoners to good-conduct time (GCT) credits of 'up to 54 days for each year of the prisoner's sentence imposed by the court.' 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). The BOP calculated Cabrera's maximum GCT as 575 days (540 days for 10 full years plus 35 days prorated for the remaining 8 months of a 128-month sentence). Cabrera argued his sentence was actually 230 months—yielding a maximum of 1,035 GCT days—because the sentencing judge's initial oral pronouncement controls over the written judgment.
Court's Analysis
Judge Tunheim applied Eighth Circuit precedent holding that an oral pronouncement by the sentencing court is generally the operative judgment, but that a written judgment consistent with the court's discernible intent that merely clarifies an imprecisely pronounced sentence is treated as operative. United States v. Mays, 993 F.3d 607, 622 (8th Cir. 2021); United States v. Tramp, 30 F.3d 1035, 1037 (8th Cir. 1994). The court found that the relevant measure for GCT purposes is the 'term of imprisonment,' citing 28 C.F.R. § 523.44(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(5). The J&C, which stated 128 months as the total term of imprisonment, was found to be consistent with the sentencing court's discernible intent (to give Cabrera credit for Mexican custody in the judgment itself) and to clarify the imprecision in the oral pronouncement. The court acknowledged the record was 'hardly clear' but concluded 128 months was the sentence imposed. Because Cabrera did not dispute the mathematical accuracy of the BOP's calculation assuming a 128-month sentence, no further analysis was needed.
Disposition
Cabrera's objections overruled; R&R adopted; petition denied; action dismissed with prejudice.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.