BOP Program Statement 5160.06 § 6

With the clarification provided in the Dotson case, the above-mentioned procedure outlined in

Section 5d of this program statement, which includes seeking the position of the federal

sentencing court and considering the five factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), applies to all inmate

requests for nunc pro tunc designation.

The following is an exception to this standard procedure, based on a Fourth Circuit Court of

Appeals decision which was issued before Dotson.

a. Inmate Request. Pursuant to Mangum v. Hallembaek, 910 F.3d 770 (4th Cir. 2018)

("Mangum II"), the Bureau must consider requests for a nunc pro tunc designation from inmates

sentenced in the Fourth Circuit (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West

Virginia) from December 29, 2006, the date of the Fourth Circuit Court decision in United States

v. Smith, 472 F.3d 222, (4th Cir. 2006), to March 27, 2012, the day before the Supreme Court

decision in Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231(2012).

5160.06 9/3/2026 PROPERTY OF US GOVERNMENT 7

b. Mangum II Review. As stated in Mangum II, for the time period noted in the above Section

a., a district court judge in the Fourth Circuit did not have the authority to impose a sentence to

be served consecutively to a yet-to-be-imposed state sentence based on the binding precedent in

Smith. Mangum II directs that for inmates requesting a nunc pro tunc designation who were

sentenced within the Fourth Circuit during the relevant time period, the Bureau is to conduct a

full and proper evaluation of all relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), shall not invoke the

views of the federal sentencing court, and shall weigh heavily the state court’s desire. Mangum II

determined that the federal sentencing court’s views were legally irrelevant due to the Smith

decision that was binding at the time of sentencing, and that the Bureau could not weigh these

views in its evaluation. Furthermore, the statement of the state court was entitled to more weight

“as a matter of law.” Mangum II, 910 F.3d at 775.

c. Mangum II Review Determination. As stated in Mangum II, the state court’s sentencing

preference for concurrency does not bind the Bureau in its analysis for a nunc pro tunc

designation. However, it must be clearly indicated what factors would justify overriding a state

court’s preference for concurrency, to result in the denial of an inmate’s request for nunc pro tunc

designation. The review and determination will be made by the DSCC Sentence Computation

Section Chief and documented in the inmate’s electronic file.

Pursuant to Setser, the Bureau will follow court orders or recommendations regarding concurrent

service of a federal term regardless of when the court makes the recommendation or issues the

order.