Case Name: Michael WEST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marion FEATHER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-02
Citations: 540 F. App'x 773
Docket Number: No. 12-35745
Parties: Michael WEST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marion FEATHER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 773–774

Head Matter:
Michael WEST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marion FEATHER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-35745.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Oct. 2, 2013.
Alison Clark, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Ronald K. Silver, Kelly A. Zusman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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 Michael West appeals 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 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, see Mora-Meraz v. Thomas, 601 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.
West contends that the Bureau of Prisons was obligated to credit him for time served in custody prior to September 6, 2006, because he overserved his state sentence. We disagree. The record reflects that West's state sentence terminated on September 6, 2006, and this court's case law supports use of that date as the commencement date of his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a); Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1364-67 (9th Cir.1991). Nothing in the record of West's sentencing in the case under review requires a different conclusion; thus, the district court properly denied his petition.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.