From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pinnow v. Graber

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 5, 2011
452 F. App'x 740 (9th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 09-16619 D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00584-RCC

10-05-2011

DAVID RICHARD PINNOW, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CONRAD M. GRABER, Respondent - Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

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


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner David Richard Pinnow 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, and we affirm.

Pinnow contends that he is entitled to 16 months credit towards his federal sentence for the time he spent in custody pursuant to a writ of ad prosequendum, before his sentence was imposed. Pinnow remained subject to the jurisdiction of the state during the time he spent in custody pursuant to the writ. See Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1367 (9th Cir. 1991) ("When an accused is transferred pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum he is considered to be 'on loan' to the federal authorities so that the sending state's jurisdiction over the accused continues uninterruptedly.") (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, the credits earned during that period applied to his state sentence only. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Pinnow is also not entitled to credit for the month between the imposition of his federal sentence and the date he commenced service of that sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a); Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440, 445 (9th Cir. 1998) (federal sentence commences when service of that sentence begins, not when sentence is imposed).

Pinnow also contends that the sentencing judge intended to credit him for the time he spent in state custody. This contention is not supported by the record. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) ("Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run concurrently.").

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Pinnow v. Graber

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 5, 2011
452 F. App'x 740 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Pinnow v. Graber

Case Details

Full title:DAVID RICHARD PINNOW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CONRAD M. GRABER…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 5, 2011

Citations

452 F. App'x 740 (9th Cir. 2011)

Citing Cases

Mannebach v. Gutierrez

(“Unless time is served in federal custody, it does not count as credit for time served under a federal…

Gardner v. Shartle

The case law is clear that a person transferred to federal detention pursuant to a federal writ remains in…