Case Name: Andrew M. KING, Appellant v. Cameron LINDSAY, Warden, U.S.P. Canaan
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-09
Citations: 254 F. App'x 135
Docket Number: No. 07-3174
Parties: Andrew M. KING, Appellant v. Cameron LINDSAY, Warden, U.S.P. Canaan.
Judges: Before SLOVITER, BARRY and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 254
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
Andrew M. KING, Appellant v. Cameron LINDSAY, Warden, U.S.P. Canaan.
No. 07-3174.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Nov. 7, 2007.
Opinion Filed Nov. 9, 2007.
Andrew M. King, Waymart, PA, pro se.
Nathanael J. Byerly, Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Cameron Lindsay, Warden, U.S.P. Canaan.
Before SLOVITER, BARRY and WEIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Andrew King appeals the District Court's order denying his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, we will affirm the District Court's judgment.
The procedural history of this case and the details of King's claims are well known to the parties, set forth in the District Court's thorough opinion, and need not be discussed at length. In his § 2241 petition, King argued that he was entitled to credit on his federal sentence for time served before trial. The District Court denied the petition, and King filed a timely notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and exercise plenary review over the District Court's legal conclusions. Cradle v. U.S. ex rel. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir.2002). While King makes several arguments regarding the timing and the reasons for the pretrial detention at issue, he does not dispute that the time was credited towards his state sentence for a parole violation. As explained by the District Court, under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), a defendant can only receive credit towards a federal sentence for prior custody "that has not been credited against another sentence."
For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the Distl'ict Court, we will affirm the District Court's order. King's motion to expedite the appeal is denied as moot.