United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
Glen E. Conrad United States District Judge
Hampton Heisserman, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se,
filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the calculations of his
preconviction jail time credit and good-time credit.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, and Heisserman failed
to respond, making the matter ripe for disposition. After
review of the record, the court concludes that the petition
must be dismissed.
August 16, 2012, Heisserman raped a minor under the age of
thirteen in Augusta County, Virginia. The following month,
law enforcement officers in Charles County, Maryland arrested
Heisserman and placed him in federal custody. The United
States Attorney proceeded against Heisserman under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2422(b). On October 22, 2012, the Commonwealth filed
charges as well, but, on January 23, 2013, the Circuit Court
of Augusta County entered an order granting the
Commonwealth's motion to nolle prosequi them.
Commonwealth reindicted Heisserman on October 28, 2013,
served a capias on him on October 31, and the United States
dismissed its charge. Heisserman was released on bond on the
Commonwealth's charges on February 25, 2014.
federal authorities had held Heisserman in pretrial detention
from September 16, 2012, through October 30, 2013. The
Commonwealth took custody of Heisserman on October 31, 2013.
October 1, 2014, following acceptance of an
Alford plea, the August County Circuit Court
convicted Heisserman under Va. Code § 18.2-61 and, by
order of October 3, 2014, sentenced him to a term of 56 years
with 40 years suspended. On November 3, 2014, Heisserman
became state responsible, and the Legal Services Section of
VDOC calculated the credit he had earned in local
correctional facilities prior to his convictions-a total of
10, 2017, Heisserman filed a timely § 2254 petition,
raising two claims:
1. The VDOC failed to give him pre-conviction jail-time
credit in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments;
2. The VDOC failed to give him good-time credit from
September 16, 2012 to February 23, 2014.
matter is now before the court on Respondent's motion to
dismiss. Heisserman has properly exhausted his claims in
Standard of Review -To obtain federal
habeas relief, a petitioner must demonstrate that he
is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws
or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §
2254(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), however, a federal
court may not grant a writ, of habeas corpus based on any
claim that a state court decided on the merits unless that
(1) [R]esulted in a decision that was contrary to, or
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
(2) [R]esulted in a decision that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the State court proceeding.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). "Where, as here, the state
court's application of governing federal law is
challenged, it must be shown to be not only erroneous, but
objectively unreasonable." Yarborough v.
Gentry. 540 U.S. 1, 5 (2003). Under this standard,
"[a] state court's determination that a claim lacks
merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as
'fair-minded jurists' could disagree on the
correctness of the state court's decision."