Case ID: f-appx_430/html/0580-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Michael CRIM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Neil H. ADLER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-16302.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed April 28, 2011.
    John Michael Crim, Taft, CA, pro se.
    Bureau of Prisons Regional Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Stockton, CA, Mark J. McKeon, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, Dale Patrick, Esquire, Taft, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner John Michael Crim appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we affirm.

Crim contends that the district court erred by denying his habeas petition seeking immediate consideration for transfer into a Residential Reentry Center (RRC). The record reflects that the district court did not err in denying the petition because, at the time of its decision, Crim had already received an individualized consideration for RRC placement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b) and 3624(c), and Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.2008).

Crim’s remaining contentions, to the extent they are understandable, are unavailing.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the district court properly denied Crim’s petition.