Case ID: f-appx_610/html/0649-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Darryl L. HAWKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louis W. WINN, Jr., Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-15201.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 21, 2015.
    
    Filed July 27, 2015.
    Darryl L. Hawkins, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
    Denise Ann Faulk, Esquire, U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, 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 Darryl L. Hawkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a section 2241 petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Hawkins was arrested on November 13, 1993. He acknowledges that he has received credit towards his federal sentence for the time between his arrest on November 13,1993, and October 31,1995, the day before his state sentence commenced. However, he argues that he is also entitled to credit towards his federal sentence for the period between the commencement of his state sentence on November 1, 1995, and the expiration of his state sentence on June 5, 2005, because he was allegedly in primary federal custody during that time. Contrary to this argument, the record reflects that Hawkins was in primary state custody and received credit against his state sentence for this time period. He is, therefore, not entitled to any additional federal credit. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (defendant may not receive “double credit for his detention time”).

Hawkins’ motion for judicial notice and motion for an evidentiary hearing are denied.

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