Court Opinion

ID: 9375031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 18:00:57.421324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.166401
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAWN FRANCIS RATIGAN,                          No. 22-15226

                Petitioner-Appellant,           D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00363-SHR-DTF

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CATRICIA HOWARD, Warden,

                Respondent-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                     Scott H. Rash, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Federal prisoner Shawn Francis Ratigan appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see

Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.

      *
             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).
      Ratigan contends that the time he spent in state custody serving his state

sentence should be credited toward his federal sentence. We disagree. Because

the federal sentencing court was silent as to whether Ratigan’s federal sentence

was consecutive or concurrent to his anticipated state sentence, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3584(a) creates a presumption that the sentences are to run consecutively, and

Ratigan has not presented any evidence rebutting this presumption.

      Ratigan also contends that under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) he is entitled to

custody credit because the state relinquished jurisdiction over him when he was

transferred to federal authorities for his federal criminal proceedings. This

argument is unavailing because the record shows that the federal district court

issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to secure his presence for the

federal proceedings. The state of Missouri therefore retained primary jurisdiction

over Ratigan from the time of his arrest until he was received in federal custody to

begin serving his federal sentence. See Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440, 445 (9th Cir.

1998). Moreover, Ratigan has not shown that the time he spent in temporary

federal custody pursuant to the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was not

credited towards his state sentence. See also 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); United States v.

Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992) (a defendant cannot “receive a double credit for

his detention time”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                     22-15226