Case Name: Lee Andrew CAIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 357 F. App'x 886
Docket Number: No. 08-15416
Parties: Lee Andrew CAIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 886–887

Head Matter:
Lee Andrew CAIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-15416.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Lee Andrew Cain, Atwater, CA, pro se.
Phillip A. Talbert, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Lee Andrew Cain appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the denial of prior custody credit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Cain contends that he is entitled to pre-sentence custody credit for time spent in a community corrections center while on pretrial release, because the restrictive conditions at the center amounted to "official detention" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). This contention fails under Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 65, 115 S.Ct. 2021, 132 L.Ed.2d 46 (1995) (holding that a defendant required to reside at a community treatment center while released on bail is not entitled to credit pursuant to § 3585(b)).
We decline to address claims Cain has raised for the first time on appeal. See Allen v. Ornoski, 435 F.3d 946, 960 (9th Cir.2006).
Cain's motion to expedite this appeal is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.