Clarence Walker v. Linda Sanders

Ninth Circuit

Clarence Walker v. Linda Sanders

463 F. App'x 668

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 23, 2011

Docket10-55822

StatusUnpublished

This text of 463 F. App'x 668 (Clarence Walker v. Linda Sanders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clarence Walker v. Linda Sanders, 463 F. App'x 668 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Clarence Walker 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. § 2253, and we affirm.

*669 Walker contends that his 12-month period of home confinement should have been counted against his 40-month period of imprisonment. This argument lacks merit because the home confinement was imposed as a special condition of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) (“The term of supervised release commences on the day the person is released from imprisonment .... ”).

Walker also contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) had a duty to contact the district court to resolve an ambiguity in the judgment. Because there was no ambiguity, the BOP had no such duty. See United States v. 60.22 Acres of Land, 638 F.2d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir.1980).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI