Case ID: f-appx_511/html/0621-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Leonard CALVERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.E. THOMAS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-35169.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted March 5, 2013.
    Filed March 12, 2013.
    Alison Clark, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Stephen R. Sady, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Ronald K. Silver, Natalie K. Wight, Assistant U.S., Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: TASHIMA, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

John Calvert appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and § 2253(a), and we affirm.

Calvert challenges the decision of the Bureau of Prisons not to grant him prior-custody credit, against his 270 month federal sentence, for time he served in Washington state custody before his federal sentence was imposed. His claim fails.

First, the Bureau of Prisons had the authority to calculate prior-custody credit, and was not bound by the sentencing court’s recommendation. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333-35,112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992); Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440, 446 (9th Cir.1998).

Second, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), the Bureau properly denied Calvert’s request because that time had already been credited against his state sentence. Wilson, 503 U.S. at 333,112 S.Ct. 1351.

Nothing in our decision suggests that Calvert cannot seek an adjustment of his sentence with the original sentencing court. The government indicated that it would not object to the sentencing court considering whether Calvert’s sentence should be corrected in light of the Bureau’s calculation of Calvert’s projected release date and the conclusion of these proceedings.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.