Jose Enrique Medina Aguilar v. Cynthia Entzel

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ENRIQUE MEDINA AGUILAR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CYNTHIA ENTZEL,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-55583
D.C. No. 5:17-cv-01624-CAS-AS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Jose Enrique Medina Aguilar appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Tablada v.
Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), 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 18-55583
Aguilar contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) incorrectly calculated
the end date of the 38-month sentence for his 2012 illegal reentry conviction, and
the start date of the 120-month sentence for his 2014 drug conviction, which he is
currently serving. This latter sentence was ordered to run concurrently to any
“undischarged” portion of his illegal reentry sentence.
The BOP correctly determined that Aguilar’s illegal reentry sentence
concluded on July 25, 2014, taking account of the date on which the court imposed
the sentence, credit for time served, and good time credit. The BOP also correctly
determined that his current sentence started on November 3, 2014, the date on
which it was imposed. See Schleining v. Thomas, 642 F.3d 1242, 1244 (9th Cir.
2011) (holding that a federal sentence cannot commence until a prisoner is
sentenced in federal district court). Because Aguilar’s illegal reentry sentence was
fully discharged when the district court imposed his current sentence, his current
sentence could not run concurrent to his illegal reentry sentence. See id.
To the extent Aguilar is contending that he should receive additional custody
credit for his current sentence, he is not entitled to relief. The record shows that
his time spent in pretrial detention was credited toward his illegal reentry sentence,
and therefore that time cannot be credited towards his current sentence. See 18
U.S.C. § 3585(b); United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --