Najeeb Rahman v. Conrad Graber

Ninth Circuit

Najeeb Rahman v. Conrad Graber

615 F. App'x 876

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 2, 2015

Docket13-55652

StatusUnpublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 615 F. App'x 876 (Najeeb Rahman v. Conrad Graber) 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

Najeeb Rahman v. Conrad Graber, 615 F. App'x 876 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Former federal prisoner Najeeb Rah-man appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the computation of his custody credits. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

Rahman contends, and the government concedes, that he is entitled to credit towards his federal sentence for the period between the imposition of his state sentence on May 28, 2009, and the imposition of his federal sentence on June 4, 2010. However, as Rahman concedes, the Bureau of Prisons granted him credit for this time period during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is moot and we dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066,135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (per curiam) (appeal should be “dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ in favor of the appellant”) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895)).

Rahman argues for the first time in his reply brief that there are additional time credits that he should have received but did not. Those arguments are not properly before this court and we decline to address them. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir.1994) (“Habeas *877 claims that are not raised before the district court in the petition are not cognizable on appeal.”).

DISMISSED.

**

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

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

MEMORANDUM **

Former federal prisoner Najeeb Rah-man appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the computation of his custody credits. We dismiss the appeal as moot.

Rahman contends, and the government concedes, that he is entitled to credit towards his federal sentence for the period between the imposition of his state sentence on May 28, 2009, and the imposition of his federal sentence on June 4, 2010. However, as Rahman concedes, the Bureau of Prisons granted him credit for this time period during the pendency of this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is moot and we dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066,135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996) (per curiam) (appeal should be “dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ in favor of the appellant”) (quoting Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895)).

Rahman argues for the first time in his reply brief that there are additional time credits that he should have received but did not. Those arguments are not properly before this court and we decline to address them. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir.1994) (“Habeas *877 claims that are not raised before the district court in the petition are not cognizable on appeal.”).

DISMISSED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 F. App'x 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/najeeb-rahman-v-conrad-graber-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack