Case Name: Anthony Leon GREENHILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Francisco J. QUINTANA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-14
Citations: 569 F. App'x 492
Docket Number: No. 12-57027
Parties: Anthony Leon GREENHILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Francisco J. QUINTANA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 569
Pages: 492–492

Head Matter:
Anthony Leon GREENHILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Francisco J. QUINTANA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-57027.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2014.
Filed April 14, 2014.
Anthony Leon Greenhill, Bruceton Mills, WV, pro se.
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Assistant U.S. Attorney La-CV, Dorothy C. Kim, Ryan White, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, 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 Anthony Leon Green-hill 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 the denial of a section 2241 habeas petition de novo and factual findings for clear error, see Reynolds v. Thomas, 608 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.2010), abrogated on other grounds by Setser v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012), and we affirm.
Greenhill contends that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for time he served in state custody. The district court did not clearly err in concluding that Greenhill was in state custody serving a 12-month parole revocation sentence between January 11, 1994, and January 11, 1995. Accordingly, Greenhill is not entitled to any credit against his federal sentence for this period. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); Allen v. Crabtree, 153 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir.1998) section 3585(b) disallows double crediting for time served.
We reject Greenhill's contention that he is entitled to nunc pro tunc designation because that determination is left to the discretion of the Bureau of Prisons. See Reynolds, 603 F.3d at 1151-52.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.