Scottie Lay v. Gill

Ninth Circuit

Scottie Lay v. Gill

575 F. App'x 816

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 2014

Docket13-15190

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 575 F. App'x 816 (Scottie Lay v. Gill) 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

Scottie Lay v. Gill, 575 F. App'x 816 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Federal prisoner Scottie B. Lay 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. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, 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, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012), and we affirm.

Lay contends that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the time he spent in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. The argument is unpersuasive because he remained subject to the state’s jurisdiction during the time he spent in federal custody pursuant to the writ. See Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440, 445 (9th Cir.1998). The record reflects that the credits earned during that period were applied to Lay’s state sentence, and therefore they cannot be credited towards his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); Allen v. Crabtree, 153 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir.1998) (section 3585(b) disallows double crediting for time served).

Lay also contends that the district court erred when it held his habeas corpus petition to the “high standard applied to legal findings of lawyers.” The record does not support this contention.

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 ***

Federal prisoner Scottie B. Lay 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. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, 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, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012), and we affirm.

Lay contends that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the time he spent in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. The argument is unpersuasive because he remained subject to the state’s jurisdiction during the time he spent in federal custody pursuant to the writ. See Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440, 445 (9th Cir.1998). The record reflects that the credits earned during that period were applied to Lay’s state sentence, and therefore they cannot be credited towards his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); Allen v. Crabtree, 153 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir.1998) (section 3585(b) disallows double crediting for time served).

Lay also contends that the district court erred when it held his habeas corpus petition to the “high standard applied to legal findings of lawyers.” The record does not support this contention.

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)

575 F. App'x 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scottie-lay-v-gill-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack