Case Name: Barry R. SCHOTZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig APKER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-31
Citations: 503 F. App'x 512
Docket Number: No. 11-17096
Parties: Barry R. SCHOTZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig APKER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 503
Pages: 512–513

Head Matter:
Barry R. SCHOTZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Craig APKER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-17096.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 31, 2012.
Barry R. Schotz, Safford, AZ, pro se.
Jane L. Westby, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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 Barry R. Schotz 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, and we affirm.
Schotz contends that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") unlawfully refused his request for a transfer to a Residential Re-entry Center ("RRC"). We review the denial of a section 2241 habeas petition de novo and findings of fact for clear error. See Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.2010). Schotz's contention fails be cause the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Schotz did not make a direct request for placement in an RRC. In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Schotz's argument that the BOP violated 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) by failing to consider him for RRC placement before the end of his sentence.
Schotz's motion to take judicial notice of several documents that he filed with this court is denied, and the government's motion to strike these documents is granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.