Silver Galindo v. J. Salazar ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SILVER JOSE GALINDO, No. 18-16183
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00302-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
J. SALAZAR,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 11, 2019***
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Silver Jose Galindo 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. Reviewing de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.
Galindo argues that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the
time spent in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum
between April 5, 2004, and January 28, 2005. We disagree. The state retained
primary jurisdiction over Galindo during this time, see Thomas v. Brewer, 923
F.2d 1361, 1367 (9th Cir. 1991) (an accused transferred pursuant to a writ of
habeas corpus ad prosequendum is “on loan” to federal authorities and remains a
state prisoner), and the record reflects that the state of Hawaii credited this time
toward Galindo’s state parole revocation sentence. Therefore, the credits earned
during this period cannot be credited towards his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §
3585(b); United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992) (under section 3585(b),
a defendant cannot “receive a double credit for his detention time”).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-16183