Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian NUNEZ-NEVAREZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-27
Citations: 297 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: No. 06-56567
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Adrian NUNEZ-NEVAREZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 297
Pages: 656–657

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Adrian NUNEZ-NEVAREZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-56567.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 16, 2008.
Filed Oct. 27, 2008.
Tracy L. Wilkison, Esq., USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Adrian Nunez-Nevarez, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Adrian Nunez-Nevarez, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's denial of his motion to correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
In district court, Nunez-Nevarez challenged the calculation of his concurrent sentences by the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). However, as Nunez-Nevarez concedes in his opening brief, this claim fails. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585.
Nunez-Nevarez also contends for the first time on appeal that his sentence is unreasonable. We conclude that Nunez-Nevarez has waived this contention by failing to raise it in his § 2255 motion in district court. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999); Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1456 (9th Cir.1995).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.