Case ID: f-appx_170/html/0894-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ignacio Champion LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Cole JETER, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 05-10240.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided March 16, 2006.
    Background: Prisoner filed § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus, challenging sentencing. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas denied petition. Prisoner appealed.
    Holding: The Court of Appeals held that Bureau of Prisons (BOP) properly amended sentencing court’s judgment by denying orally-ordered credit to sentence.
    
      Ignacio Champion Lopez, Fort Worth, TX, pro se.
    Tami C. Parker, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ignacio Champion Lopez, federal prisoner # 15603-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He challenges the district court’s conclusion that he received credit on his state sentence for the time he spent in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. He argues that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment when it amended the sentencing court’s judgment by denying the orally ordered credit to his sentence.

Evidence in the record supported the district court’s factual determination that Lopez received credit on his state sentence for the time spent in federal prison pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Thus, this determination was not clearly erroneous. See Free v. Miles, 333 F.3d 550, 552 (5th Cir.2003). Nor did the district court err in finding as a matter of law that Lopez was not entitled to the credit he sought. Time spent by a prisoner in federal custody for the purpose of appearing in federal court via a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is not counted towards the federal sentence if that time was credited toward his state sentence. United States v. Brown, 753 F.2d 455, 456 (5th Cir.1985); 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.