Case Name: Manuel Garcia GARZA, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. N.L. CONNER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-23
Citations: 101 F. App'x 973
Docket Number: No. 03-40644
Parties: Manuel Garcia GARZA, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. N.L. CONNER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 973–974

Head Matter:
Manuel Garcia GARZA, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. N.L. CONNER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-40644.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 23, 2004.
Manuel Garcia Garza, Jr., Bastrop, TX, pro se.
Paul E. Ñaman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Beaumont, TX, Thomas Warren Kopf, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tyler, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Manuel Garcia Garza, Jr. (Garza), federal prisoner # 04668-078, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he challenged the Bureau of Prisons' computation of the sentence for his conviction of possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Garza argues that the district court erred in determining that his sentence runs consecutively to his prior state sentences.
Garza is not entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for time served on his state sentences because he received credit on his state sentences until he was released into federal custody. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); Leal v. Tombone, 341 F.3d 427, 428, 430 (5th Cir.2003). Furthermore, because the federal judgment did not state whether Garza's sentence was to be served concurrently with or consecutively to his state sentences, the sentences are deemed to run consecutively. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). Therefore, the district court did not err in determining that Garza's federal and state sentences run consecutively.
Accordingly, the district court's 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.