Case ID: f-appx_116/html/0514-01.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

Rickie Lee BEASLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. K.J. WENDT, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-10203.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Nov. 17, 2004.
    Rickie Lee Beasley, # 26417-077, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
    Angie Lee Henson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Rickie Lee Beasley, federal prisoner #26417-077, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Beasely argues that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) incorrectly calculated his sentence.

By failing to brief the issue on appeal, Beasley has abandoned his assertion that he should receive credit on his federal sentence for the time from his arrest until his return to state custody after receiving his federal sentence. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

The sentencing court did not specify at sentencing whether Beasley’s federal sentence was to be served consecutively to, or concurrently with, his state sentence. However, Beasley was “already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment” and “[mjultiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently.” 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); see also Free v. Miles, 333 F.3d 550, 553 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Beasley was not entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the time during which he was serving his state sentence. The judgment of the district court is affirmed because Beasley has not shown error in the computation of his sentence. See Bickford v. Int’l Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1981).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.