States Bureau of Prisons, and the Warden of the subject federal penitentiary, to credit the petitioner's presentence time spent in a community treatment center against his sentence. Wilson explicitly holds that only the Attorney General through the BOP may determine and issue sentence credit for presentence custody, and not the courts. In view of these intervening Supreme Court precedents, Johnson does not control this case and appears to be overruled. See County of Monroe v. United States Dept. of Labor, 690 F.2d 1359, 1363 (11th Cir.1982) (“[A] three-judge panel may not disregard precedent set by a prior panel absent an intervening Supreme Court decision or en banc circuit decision.” (emphasis added)); see also Smith v. Duff & Phelps, Inc., 891 F.2d 1567, 1570 n. 6 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the government presented the
holding that directly applicable supreme court decisions require this court to overrule its prior holdings holdings of this court not addressed on the merits by the supreme court remain binding despite reversal on other grounds holding johnson announced a new substantive rule and prior supreme court holdings make it retroactive holding that the court of appeals lacks the authority to overrule decisions of the supreme court of north carolina and has a responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the supreme court holding that only intervening law from the supreme court or this court sitting en banc can overrule a prior panel decision