Anthony Greenhill v. Francisco Quintana , 569 F. App'x 492 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY LEON GREENHILL, No. 12-57027
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-04244-JFW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Anthony Leon Greenhill 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
habeas petition de novo and factual findings for clear error, see Reynolds v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by
Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012), and we affirm.
Greenhill contends that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for
time he served in state custody. The district court did not clearly err in concluding
that Greenhill was in state custody serving a 12-month parole revocation sentence
between January 11, 1994, and January 11, 1995. Accordingly, Greenhill is not
entitled to any credit against his federal sentence for this period. 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).
We reject Greenhill’s contention that he is entitled to nunc pro tunc
designation because that determination is left to the discretion of the Bureau of
Prisons. See Reynolds, 603 F.3d at 1151-52.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-57027