Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01328/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01328-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 17, 2008

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

FRANK O’BRYAN,

Petitioner - Appellant, No. 07-1328

v. (D. Colorado)

R. WILEY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

(D.C. No. 07-cv-01170-ZLW)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Frank O’Bryan, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. In his § 2241 petition, O’Bryan

alleged the respondent warden had miscalculated his sentence by failing to give

Appellate Case: 07-1328 Document: 0101112595 Date Filed: 01/17/2008 Page: 1
1

O’Bryan’s sentence for witness tampering was ordered to be served

consecutively to sentences he was then serving for violations of conditions of his

supervised release.

2

Because O’Bryan is a federal prisoner, he need not obtain a certificate of

appealability before appealing the denial of his § 2241 petition. McIntosh v.

United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 810 n.1 (10th Cir. 1997).

-2-

him credit for time served prior to the imposition of his instant sentence for

witness tampering.1

 The district court determined O’Bryan was not entitled, as a

matter of law, to time-served credit because the time he served in custody prior to

the imposition of the instant sentence was credited against previous sentences. 

18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) (providing that a defendant shall not be given credit for prior

custody if that prior custody was credited against another sentence); see also

United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992) (“Congress made clear [in

enacting § 3585(b)] that a defendant could not receive a double credit for his

detention time.”). The district court’s resolution of O’Bryan’s § 2241 petition is

undeniably correct. Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291,2

 we AFFIRM. O’Bryan’s request to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis

is DENIED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-1328 Document: 0101112595 Date Filed: 01/17/2008 Page: 2