Perry Peterkin v. Warden Usp Atwater

584 F. App'x 342
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJuly 29, 2014
Docket13-56305
StatusUnpublished

This text of 584 F. App'x 342 (Perry Peterkin v. Warden Usp Atwater) 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
Perry Peterkin v. Warden Usp Atwater, 584 F. App'x 342 (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Perry Peterkin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition with prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a section 2241 habeas petition, see Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.2010), abrogated on other grounds by Setser v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 1473, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012), and we affirm.

Peterkin contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) miscalculated his sentence, and that it abused its discretion by denying his request for nunc pro tunc designation of the state facility where he served his state sentence. The record reflects that the BOP correctly calculated Peterkin’s sentence, considered the relevant statutory factors, and did not abuse its discretion in denying Peterkin’s request. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); Reynolds, 603 F.3d at 1151.

Peterkin also contends that the district court erred in denying his petition because the BOP was obligated to comply with the state court’s order that his sentence run concurrently with his federal sentence, and the BOP’s refusal to follow the state’s order was an abuse of discretion, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a), and a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Contrary to Peterkin’s contentions, the BOP is not obligated to implement a state’s concurrency order. See Reynolds, 603 F.3d at 1151; see also Taylor v. Sawyer, 284 F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir.2002) (“The Full Faith and Credit Clause is not violated if the BOP, a federal government agency, chooses not to give effect to a state court judgment requiring concurrent sentences.”), abrogated on other grounds by Setser, 132 S.Ct. at 1473.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Related

Reynolds v. Thomas
603 F.3d 1144 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Setser v. United States
132 S. Ct. 1463 (Supreme Court, 2012)
Taylor v. Sawyer
284 F.3d 1143 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
584 F. App'x 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-peterkin-v-warden-usp-atwater-ca9-2014.