Matthew Rieder v. RICHARD B. IVES and HARLEY G. LAPPIN

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MATTHEW RIEDER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RICHARD B. IVES and HARLEY G.
LAPPIN,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 09-16470
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02729-GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gregory G. Hollows, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Matthew Rieder appeals pro se from the district court’s
order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16470 2
Rieder contends that the district court erred when it denied his § 2241 habeas
petition because the Bureau of Prisons ran his state and federal sentences
consecutively to one another despite the state court allegedly ordering that the
sentences be served concurrently. He contends that the Bureau of Prisons actions
denied him the right to credits pursuant to Willis v. United States, 438 F.2d 923
(5th Cir. 1971) (per curiam), and violated his Fifth, Eighth, and Thirteenth
Amendment rights. He also contends that he is entitled to a nunc pro tunc
designation as a result of the Bureau’s actions. Rieder’s contentions are belied by
the record. The record reflects that the state court ordered the state sentences to be
served consecutively to the federal sentence. Accordingly, the district court did not
err.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --