GALINDO v. SALAZAR (2019)

MEMORANDUM ***

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 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, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (under section 3585(b), a defendant cannot “receive a double credit for his detention time”).

AFFIRMED.