(caption unavailable)

1 Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
for the Fifth Circuit
_____________________________________
No. 92-8310
Summary Calendar
_____________________________________
DONNY JOEL HARVEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
VERSUS
CARLOS ORTIZ, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A 91 CV 735)
______________________________________________________
(December 2, 1992)
Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Petitioner Harvey seeks habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. He contends that the Bureau of Prisons should give him
credit against his federal sentence for time he served on his state
sentence. The district court denied relief and we affirm.
Harvey argues that since he was serving an unexpired term for
his state conviction when his federal sentence was imposed his
federal sentence should have been made concurrent with his state

-- 1 of 2 --

2
sentence. This argument lacks merit. The imposition of multiple
sentences is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3584 whether the sentences
result from multiple federal convictions or state and federal
convictions. See United States v. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 2034 (1991). Multiple terms
of imprisonment imposed at different times, as in this case, run
consecutively unless the court orders that they run concurrently.
§ 3584 (a). Since the district court did not order otherwise, the
sentences in Harvey's case run consecutively.
Harvey also contends that the failure to grant the credit he
seeks violates his rights against double jeopardy. But his
argument overlooks the fact that he violated both state and federal
law. See United States v. Moore, 958 F.2d 646, 650 (5th Cir.
1992).
Nor is Harvey entitled to credit under federal law since he
received credit for time served against his state sentence. 18
U.S.C. § 3585 (b).
Appellant also challenges in this proceeding the state parole
board's revocation of his probation. This contention is
inappropriate in a § 2241 proceeding. See § 2254 (b). In any
event, whenever a person receives separate punishments for conduct
which violates the laws of separate sovereigns double jeopardy may
not be claimed. See Moore, 958 F.2d at 650.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --