Darryl Parkison v. Ww Lathop ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 21 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DARRYL PARKISON,                                No.    19-17119
    Petitioner-Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04879-JAT-DMF
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WW LATHOP,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 14, 2020**
    Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    Federal prisoner Darryl Parkison appeals pro se from the district court’s
    judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and, reviewing de novo, see United States v.
    Pirro, 
    104 F.3d 297
    , 299 (9th Cir. 1997), we affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Parkison’s § 2241 petition contends that his 52-month federal sentence
    should be served concurrently with his Texas state sentences, which are now fully
    discharged. Insofar as he challenges the legality of the sentence imposed by the
    United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, the district court
    properly concluded that Parkison cannot raise such a claim under § 2241 because
    he has not established actual innocence or that he has not had an “unobstructed
    procedural shot” at presenting that claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); Harrison v.
    Ollison, 
    519 F.3d 952
    , 959 (9th Cir. 2008).
    To the extent Parkison is challenging the execution of his sentence, he is not
    entitled to relief under § 2241. When, as here, a federal sentence is imposed at a
    different time from an undischarged state sentence, and the federal judgment does
    not specify otherwise, the two terms are presumed to run consecutively. See 18
    U.S.C. § 3584(a). Therefore, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) did not err by
    calculating Parkison’s federal sentence as running consecutively to his state
    sentence. Further, Parkison’s federal sentence began to run on February 21, 2018,
    and the BOP could not grant him federal credit for time that had already been
    credited to his state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a), (b); United States v.
    Wilson, 
    503 U.S. 329
    , 337 (1992) (defendant may not receive “double credit for his
    detention time”).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      19-17119
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-17119

Filed Date: 7/21/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/21/2020