Case Name: Joel Chad ALDRIDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. K.J. WENDT, Warden; M. Gullat, Inmate Systems Manager, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-26
Citations: 149 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 04-10982
Parties: Joel Chad ALDRIDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. K.J. WENDT, Warden; M. Gullat, Inmate Systems Manager, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 149
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
Joel Chad ALDRIDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. K.J. WENDT, Warden; M. Gullat, Inmate Systems Manager, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-10982.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Aug. 26, 2005.
Joel Chad Aldridge, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
Angie Lee Henson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before JONES, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joel Chad Aldridge, federal prisoner # 69187-080, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He argues that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has improperly determined that his federal sentence runs consecutively to his state sentence. The district court did not err by concluding that the federal sentence was to run consecutively to the state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); Free v. Miles, 333 F.3d 550, 553 (5th Cir.2003); United States v. Hernandez, 234 F.3d 252, 256-57 (5th Cir.2000); United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1217 (5th Cir.1991).
Aldridge also argues that the BOP erroneously failed to give him 366-days of jail credit on his federal sentence for time served in state custody when the state court ordered that the credit be rescinded from the state sentence. Aldridge is not statutorily entitled to credit on his federal sentence because, despite the state court order, the time at issue was credited toward his state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.