Hernandez v. Adler

Ninth Circuit

Hernandez v. Adler

320 F. App'x 742

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 2009

DocketNo. 08-16958

StatusPublished

This text of 320 F. App'x 742 (Hernandez v. Adler) 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

Hernandez v. Adler, 320 F. App'x 742 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Fermín Vicente Hernandez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Hernandez contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has improperly calculated his two federal sentences to be partially consecutive. However, the record reflects that the BOP has calculated the sentence as the Eastern District of Tennessee intended. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); cf. Taylor v. Sawyer, 284 F.3d 1143, 1148-49 (9th Cir.2002). Moreover, the BOP’s determination of when the sentence began to run did not deny Hernandez pre-sentence credits he was entitled to receive under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); cf 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a).

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Fermín Vicente Hernandez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Hernandez contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has improperly calculated his two federal sentences to be partially consecutive. However, the record reflects that the BOP has calculated the sentence as the Eastern District of Tennessee intended. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); cf. Taylor v. Sawyer, 284 F.3d 1143, 1148-49 (9th Cir.2002). Moreover, the BOP’s determination of when the sentence began to run did not deny Hernandez pre-sentence credits he was entitled to receive under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); cf 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a).

AFFIRMED.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F. App'x 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-adler-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack