David Richard Pinnow v. Conrad M. Graber

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID RICHARD PINNOW,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CONRAD M. GRABER,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-16619
D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00584-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011**
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner David Richard Pinnow 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, and we affirm.
Pinnow contends that he is entitled to 16 months credit towards his federal
FILED
OCT 5 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16619 2
sentence for the time he spent in custody pursuant to a writ of ad prosequendum,
before his sentence was imposed. Pinnow remained subject to the jurisdiction of
the state during the time he spent in custody pursuant to the writ. See Thomas v.
Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1367 (9th Cir. 1991) (“When an accused is transferred
pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum he is considered to be ‘on
loan’ to the federal authorities so that the sending state’s jurisdiction over the
accused continues uninterruptedly.”) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, the
credits earned during that period applied to his state sentence only. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3585(b). Pinnow is also not entitled to credit for the month between the
imposition of his federal sentence and the date he commenced service of that
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a); Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440, 445 (9th Cir.
1998) (federal sentence commences when service of that sentence begins, not when
sentence is imposed).
Pinnow also contends that the sentencing judge intended to credit him for
the time he spent in state custody. This contention is not supported by the record.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (“Multiple terms of imprisonment imposed at different
times run consecutively unless the court orders that the terms are to run
concurrently.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --