*This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicataand collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 31 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

__________________________ JEFFREY WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant,
v. JOE BOOKER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 98-1271 (D. Colo.) (D.Ct. No. 97-Z-419)

____________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY , EBEL , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Appellant Jeffrey Washington, an inmate appearing pro se , appeals the-2-

district court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus pet ition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm.
While on parole from a federal sentence for bank ro bbery and theft, Mr. Washington violated conditions of his parole by com mitting various drug-testing infractions. The United States Parole Commission i ssued a warrant for his arrest. During the pendency of the warrant, the Los Angeles Police Department sought Mr. Washington’s arrest in connection with state ch arges of robbery and assault. Working in cooperation with the local police, on Ju ly 18, 1995, United States Marshal’s deputies arrived at petitioner’s residenc e, confirmed his presence, and contacted the local police. Because Mr. Washington attempted to leave the premise before the police arrived, the federal depu ties detained him. After their arrival, the police arrested Mr. Washington and too k him into custody on the state charges.
After spending 275 days in state custody, state off icials transferred Mr. Washington to federal custody January 25, 1996. Atthat time, officials completed the federal warrant by attesting in writi ng as to Mr. Washington’s arrest and the warrant’s execution on that date. A t a parole revocation hearing, Mr. Washington admitted using drugs and alcohol, bu t denied involvement in the-3-

state robbery. On the hearing examiner’s recommend ation, the United States Parole Commission revoked Mr. Washington’s mandatory parole release and declined to credit any of the time spent on parole toward completion of his sentence.
Mr. Washington brought his § 2241 petition claiming the brief detention by the federal deputies constituted “execution” of the federal warrant. Based on this premise, he argued the 275 days in state custody or“street time” must be credited toward his federal sentence. He also raised other issues concerning his parole revocation hearing and revocation of his parole.
After thorough discussion and analysis, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended the district court deny Mr. Washington’ s petition. As to the issue of the warrant’s execution, the magistrate judge de termined the United States Marshal’s deputies only “detained” Mr. Washington f or the purpose of turning him over to the state’s custody.
After considering Mr. Washington’s objections to th e recommendation, case law, and the undisputed facts, the district co urt issued an order and judgment thoroughly discussing the issues raised in Mr. Wash ington’s petition. Based on-4-

the circumstances of Mr. Washington’s arrest and cu stody by state officials, and relying on relevant statutory law, the language of the warrant itself, and case law including McConnell v. Martin , 896 F.2d 441, 445-46 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 861 (1990), the district court concluded t he execution of the warrant did not occur until Mr. Washington’s transfer to federa l custody on January 25, 1996. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendations, denied the petition.
Although Mr. Washington raised several issues in hi s petition, he limits his appeal solely to his claim the United States Marsha l’s deputies executed the federal warrant at the time they detained him at hi s residence. He relies on essentially the same arguments supporting his petit ion.
We review a district court’s denial of a § 2241 pet ition de novo
. See Sinclair v. Henman, 986 F.2d 407, 408 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 842 (1993) (determining the validity of warrant’s execu tion as part of a de novo review). After careful review of the record, the b riefs, and the applicable law, we hold the execution of the warrant at issue did not occur until Mr. Washington’s transfer to federal custody on January 25, 1996. F or substantially the same reasons articulated in the district court’s order, we deny Mr. Washington’s § 2241-5-

petition and DISMISS his appeal. Because we cannot articulate these re asons any better than the district court, we attach its O rder of Dismissal and Judgment dated July 10, 1998, as part of this decision. Entered by the Court: WADE BRORBY United States Circuit Judge