UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ ARTURO SOLIS, Pe titioner - Appellant,

v. M. A. STANCIL, Re spondent - Appellee. No. 20-1185 (D.C. No. 1:18- CV-02842-DDD) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HOLMES , BACHARACH , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ This appeal stems from the admi nistration of Mr. Arturo Solis’s convictions and sentences in state and federal co urts. Mr. Solis filed a federal habeas petition, cl aiming that authorities hadn’t properly credited time on his federal sentence. The district court denied habeas relief, and we affirm.

* This order and judgmen t does not constitute bi nding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgmen t may be cited for its persuasi ve value if otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 25, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 I. Standard of Review This Court conducts de novo review of the denial of habeas relief. See Garza v. Davis , 596 F.3d 1198, 1203 (10th Cir. 2010). II. Sentence Computation While serving his state sentence , Mr. Solis was charged with a federal offense. Doc. 55-1 at ¶ 7. Th e new federal charge led to his arrest and temporary transfer to federal custody. This transfer required Mr. Solis to spend roughly seven mo nths in federal prison, where he waited for his federal trial to start. Doc. 55-1 at ¶¶ 7, 13. Mr. Solis claims that his federal sentence should have included at leas t some of the time in this sevenmonth period. Appellant’s Openin g Brief at 2–3. We disagree. The federal sentence did not start when Mr. Solis entered federal custody. At that point, he had not be en convicted in fede ral court, so he could not have been serving a federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); see United States v. Flores , 616 F.2d 840, 841 (5th Cir. 1980). The seven-month period ended with Mr. Solis’s federal sentencing. In determining the sentence, the fede ral district court had to decide whether the federal sentence would run concurrently with or consecutively to the state sentence. The court d ecided to run the federal sentence consecutively to the stat e sentence. So the court ordered that Mr. Solis wouldn’t start serving his federal senten ce until he had finished serving his state sentence. Doc. 55-1 at ¶ 14. Given this orde r, Mr. Solis could not3 start serving his federal sentence until he finished serving his state sentence. So he didn’t start serving his federal sentence until after the seven-month period had expired. Mr. Solis claims that both the dist rict court and prison authorities erred because the federal sentence should have run concurrently with the state sentence. But Mr. So lis waived these claims by omitting th em in his habeas petition. Owens v. Trammell , 792 F.3d 1234, 1246 (10th Cir. 2015). Even in the absence of waiver, how ever, these claims would fail for two reasons. First, the se ntencing court had discreti on to run the sentences consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) . Second, when a federal court has ordered sentences to run consecut ively, prison au thorities cannot unilaterally change the sentence. United States v. Miller , 594 F.3d 1240, 1242 (10th Cir. 2010). Fo r both reasons, we wo uld have rejected Mr. Solis’s two claims even if he had not waived them. Affirmed. Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge