David Edmond Trine v. Josias Salazar

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID EDMOND TRINE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JOSIAS SALAZAR,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-35712
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00020-AA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner David Edmond Trine appeals pro se from the district
court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the
calculation of his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 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).
FILED
MAY 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35712
Trine claims that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for time
served prior to the imposition of his federal sentence. Reviewing de novo, see
Schleining v. Thomas, 642 F.3d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 2011), we conclude that this
claim fails. The federal court imposed Trine’s sentence on January 22, 2014, to be
served concurrently with his previously imposed state sentences. The Bureau of
Prisons designated the state facility for service of the federal sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3621(b) nunc pro tunc to that date. Therefore, Trine’s sentence
commenced on January 22, 2014, and it cannot be backdated prior to its
commencement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a); Schleining, 642 F.3d at 1247-48.
Moreover, because the time that Trine seeks to credit to his federal sentence was
credited to his state sentences, he is not entitled to any additional credit for time
served. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337
(1992). Furthermore, contrary to Trine’s contentions, the Bureau of Prisons had no
cause to contact the federal sentencing court, see United States v. Peters, 470 F.3d
907, 909 (9th Cir. 2006), and there is no conflict between the written judgment and
the oral pronouncement of his federal sentence.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --