Case Name: Francisco B. LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dan JOSLIN, Warden, Federal Correctional Institute, Seagoville, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-21
Citations: 186 F. App'x 466
Docket Number: No. 05-10214
Parties: Francisco B. LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dan JOSLIN, Warden, Federal Correctional Institute, Seagoville, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 186
Pages: 466–467

Head Matter:
Francisco B. LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dan JOSLIN, Warden, Federal Correctional Institute, Seagoville, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-10214
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 21, 2006.
Francisco Lopez, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Francisco B. Lopez, federal prisoner # 56053-079, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged the way the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is crediting the time he has served on a 72-month federal sentence and a 240-month federal sentence. Lopez argues that the BOP should back date the commencement of his 240-month sentence to coincide with the date he began serving his 72-month sentence. He contends that because the offenses are related, he can serve no more than the 240-month sentence imposed as a result of his second conviction. He argues that by refusing to credit the time he has served on his 72-month sentence toward the service of his 240-month sentence, his' punishment for those offenses is being illegally cumulated.
To the extent that Lopez attempts to raise claims cognizable in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain them. See § 2255. Accordingly, Lopez is not entitled to relief based on those claims.
With regard to his remaining claims, Lopez has not shown that the district court erred by denying his § 2241 petition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a) & (b). Accordingly, the judgment is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.