Terrance Moore v. Andre Matevousian , 670 F. App'x 470 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
TERRANCE LAMONT MOORE, No. 15-15421
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00851-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDRE MATEVOUSIAN,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Stanley Albert Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted October 25, 2016***
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Terrance L. Moore appeals, pro se, from the district court’s dismissal of his
petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, we affirm. See Alaimalo v. United States,
645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011).
Moore argues that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) improperly relied on
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i) to determine his projected release date and thereby
erroneously calculated his sentence, exceeded its statutory authority, and violated
his due process and equal protection rights by enforcing an invalid judgment.
Moore’s argument is premised on his incorrect belief that he is not subject to
25-year consecutive sentences for his second, third, and fourth section 924(c)
convictions because he was not charged and convicted under section
924(c)(1)(C)(i). However, because the record shows, and Moore does not dispute,
that he was convicted, inter alia, of four counts of violating section 924(c), the
BOP properly calculated his release date based on his correctly calculated 1,107-
month sentence. See United States v. Beltran-Moreno, 556 F.3d 913, 915 (9th Cir.
2009) (“[W]hen the government charges more than one § 924(c) offense in a single
indictment, each additional count is to be treated as a ‘second or subsequent
conviction’ for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i) and therefore carries a
mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five years.”). Thus, the district court
correctly denied relief on Moore’s claim that BOP improperly calculated his
sentence and release date as frivolous.
2 15-15421
Insofar as Moore challenges the sentencing court’s calculation of his
sentence, he has not obtained a certificate of appealability and we decline to grant
one. See 28 U.S. C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008).
Moore’s “Amended Motion Relating Back to Habeas Claim in Opening
Brief” is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15421