Case Name: Frederick SUTTON, Appellant, v. Calvin JOHNSON, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-21
Citations: 708 F. App'x 360
Docket Number: No. 17-55112
Parties: Frederick SUTTON, Appellant, v. Calvin JOHNSON, Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 360–361

Head Matter:
Frederick SUTTON, Appellant, v. Calvin JOHNSON, Appellee.
No. 17-55112
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 21, 2017
Frederick Sutton, Pro Se
L. Ashley Aull, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Frederick Sutton appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's denial of a section 2241 habeas petition, see Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2010), abrogated m other grounds by Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012). We affirm.'
Sutton argues that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the time spent in custody between January 5, 2009, and November 24, 2009. We disagree. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), a defendant cannot receive "double credit" — that is, credit going towards two separate sentences — for time spent in presentence custody. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992). Here, Sutton spent 317 days in presen-tence custody. Because the record reflects that the state of Michigan credited this time towards a prior Michigan state sentence, he is not entitled to credit this 317-day period towards his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.