Case Name: Michael DENT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael A. ZENK, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-27
Citations: 206 F. App'x 98
Docket Number: No. 06-0264-pr
Parties: Michael DENT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael A. ZENK, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Present: Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and Hon. JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 206
Pages: 98–100

Head Matter:
Michael DENT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael A. ZENK, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-0264-pr.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Nov. 27, 2006.
Michael Dent, pro se, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Susan Corkery, Mary K. Barr, Assistant United States Attorneys for Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, for DefendantsAppellees.
Present: Hon. ROBERT D. SACK, Hon. RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges, and Hon. JED S. RAKOFF, District Judge.
The Honorable Jed. S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court of New York, Sitting by designation.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues. Dent argues that his prior periods of incarceration — one beginning in 1992 and the other in 2003 — should be credited towards the calculation of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). The 1992 incarceration is not governed by section 3585 because it occurred prior to the offense of conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). The 2003 incarceration was for a state narcotics charge, not the federal violation of supervised released for which Dent was sentenced here. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(1). Dent has also not shown that the 2003 incarceration was for "a charge for which the defendant was arrested after the commission of the offense for which the sen tence was imposed." See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(2). We have considered the remainder of Dent's arguments and find them to be without merit.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court denying Dent's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby AFFIRMED.