Court Opinion

ID: 4305860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-08-21 20:00:25.53606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:31.357245
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 21 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM D. DUNNE,                               No.    17-16231

                Petitioner-Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00549-JAM

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
G.J. BISSETT,

                Respondent-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                    John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before:      FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

      Federal prisoner William D. Dunne appeals pro se from the district court’s

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Dunne contends that he was entitled to parole after he served 30 years of his

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
federal sentence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4206(d). We review de novo matters of

statutory interpretation and the district court’s decision to deny a section 2241

habeas petition. See United States v. Havelock, 664 F.3d 1284, 1289 (9th Cir.

2012) (en banc); Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006). Prisoners

sentenced before the Sentencing Reform Act, such as Dunne, “shall be released on

parole after having served two-thirds of each consecutive term or terms, or after

serving thirty years of each consecutive term or terms of more than forty-five years

including any life term, whichever is earlier,” absent certain findings. See 18

U.S.C. § 4206(d) (repealed 1987). Dunne received several consecutive federal

prison terms, each one less than 45 years. We conclude, as have other courts, that

the 30-year provision does not apply to Dunne’s case. Rather, section 4206(d)

entitles Dunne to parole only after he serves two-thirds of each consecutive term.

      The government’s motion for judicial notice is granted.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    17-16231