Rafi Shotland v. David Duncan

Ninth Circuit

Rafi Shotland v. David Duncan

426 F. App'x 521

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2011

Docket08-17243

StatusUnpublished

This text of 426 F. App'x 521 (Rafi Shotland v. David Duncan) 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

Rafi Shotland v. David Duncan, 426 F. App'x 521 (9th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rafi Shotland appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Shotland contends that the time spent in federal custody awaiting sentence should be credited toward his federal sentence. Contrary to Shotland’s contention, the district court did not err in determining that Shotland was not entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the time he spent in presentence custody. The state maintained primary jurisdiction over Shotland during this period, and Shotland was given credit for this time toward his state sentence. See Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1366-67 (9th Cir.1991) (state retains primary jurisdiction over state prisoner transferred to federal custody by writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum); see also United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), a defendant may not receive double credit for presentence detention time).

We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

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

MEMORANDUM **

Rafi Shotland appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Shotland contends that the time spent in federal custody awaiting sentence should be credited toward his federal sentence. Contrary to Shotland’s contention, the district court did not err in determining that Shotland was not entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the time he spent in presentence custody. The state maintained primary jurisdiction over Shotland during this period, and Shotland was given credit for this time toward his state sentence. See Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1366-67 (9th Cir.1991) (state retains primary jurisdiction over state prisoner transferred to federal custody by writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum); see also United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), a defendant may not receive double credit for presentence detention time).

We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.

**

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)

426 F. App'x 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rafi-shotland-v-david-duncan-ca9-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack