govinfo:USCOURTS-mnd-0_20-cr-00015-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  
 
   Plaintiff,  
 
v.            MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER 
             
Criminal Nos. 20-15(1)(1) (MJD); 20-83(2) (MJD) 
            
MANUEL CAMPOS-CRUZ,  
 
   Defendant. 
 
LeeAnn K. Bell, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff.  
Manuel Campos-Cruz, pro se. 
  
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Pro Se Motions for a Nunc 
Pro Tunc Designation (Doc. 177 in 20-cr-15(1); Doc. 254 in 20-cr-83(2)) and 
Motion for a Sentence Reduction Pursuant to Amendment 821 (Doc. 176 in 20-cr-
15(1)).  At all times, the Court is mindful that a document filed pro se is “to be 
liberally construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (cleaned up) 
(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); Mungai v. Univ. of Minnesota, 
141 F.4th 959, 963 (8th Cir. 2025) (noting that while pro se claims must be 
CASE 0:20-cr-00015-MJD-DTS     Doc. 179     Filed 05/07/26     Page 1 of 5
2 
 
liberally construed, they still “must contain sufficient facts supporting the 
claims”) (citation omitted). 
II. DISCUSSION 
A. Defendant’s Motions for a Nunc Pro Tunc Designation 
Defendant first requests a nunc pro tunc designation “concerning the date 
in which his Federal time started.”  (Doc. 177 at 1 in 20-cr-15(1); Doc. 254 at 1 in 
20-cr-83(2).)  Defendant asserts he is not receiving credit for time he spent in 
pretrial detention that should have been credited to his federal sentence.   
Defendant was arrested on January 8, 2020.  (PSR at F.1.)  He had 
absconded from state supervised release in October 2019 and he was detained 
and returned to the Minnesota Department of Corrections related to two prior 
state convictions (Second Degree Drug Possession and Possess Firearm After 
Conviction, Docket Nos.: 27-CR-15-33212 and 27-CR-17-15612).  Defendant’s 
appearance in federal court on January 24, 2020, was via writ.  (Doc. 9 in 20-cr-
15(1); see also PSR at F.1 (noting that “[t]ime in custody of the U.S. Marshal 
pursuant to a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum from state custody 
is not federal custody in connection with the federal offense”).) Defendant was 
charged in two federal dockets with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine 
and on October 23, 2020, pled guilty to charges in both dockets.   
CASE 0:20-cr-00015-MJD-DTS     Doc. 179     Filed 05/07/26     Page 2 of 5
3 
 
On July 23, 2021, Defendant was sentenced in both cases.  Records from 
the Minnesota Department of Corrections (“DOC”) indicate that the Defendant 
was “released to supervised release” on July 26, 2021, although he remained 
detained due to the detention order in the federal cases.  And, while Defendant’s 
behavior in his federal cases triggered his state supervised release violations, his 
custody from January 24, 2020 to July 26, 2021, the day of his release from the 
DOC was for his prior state sentences for second degree drug possession and 
possess firearm after conviction.  This time cannot also be credited against his 
federal sentence.  18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).   
The Court noted this at sentencing, stating that Defendant was under a 
DOC sentence at that time, that Defendant was appearing in federal court via a 
writ, and that it was the Court’s  understanding that the time that Defendant had 
been in custody since his arrest in January 2020 was being credited towards his 
state sentence.  The Court explained that any sentence the Court imposed that 
day would essentially begin that day and that Defendant would not receive 
credit for the time he had been in custody so far.  Defendant and his Counsel 
indicated that they understood Defendant’s sentence and Defense Counsel stated 
that he thought the Court’s representation of the situation was accurate.   
CASE 0:20-cr-00015-MJD-DTS     Doc. 179     Filed 05/07/26     Page 3 of 5
4 
 
Thus, the BOP has correctly determined Defendant’s custody credit in 
accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 2585(b).  Defendant’s motions will be denied. 
B. Defendant’s Motion For Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 
Amendment 821 
Defendant states that he is entitled to a sentence reduction in Case No. 20-
cr-15(1) because “he was under a federal justice sentence at the time of his arrest, 
and that the Probation office used this to enhance his sentence, and as such, Cruz 
prays that this court grants this motion and resentence[s] him accordingly.”  
(Doc. 176 at 2 in 20-cr-15(1).)  Because this motion relies on the same 
misunderstanding as the motions discussed above, this motion will also be 
denied.  
III. ORDER  
Based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY 
ORDERED: 
1. Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for a Nunc Pro Tunc Designation [Doc. 
177 in Case No. 20-cr-15(1)] is DENIED; 
2. Defendant’s Pro Se Motion for a Nunc Pro Tunc Designation [Doc. 
254 in Case No. 20-cr-83(2)] is DENIED; and  
  
CASE 0:20-cr-00015-MJD-DTS     Doc. 179     Filed 05/07/26     Page 4 of 5
5 
 
3.  Defendant’s Motion for a Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 
Amendment 821 [Doc. 176 in Case No. 20-cr-15(1)] is DENIED.  
   
 
Date:  May 7, 2026     s/Michael J. Davis     
       Michael J. Davis 
       United States District Court 
CASE 0:20-cr-00015-MJD-DTS     Doc. 179     Filed 05/07/26     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight