Michael A. Feaster v. Craig Apker

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL A. FEASTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CRAIG APKER,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 14-16747
D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00453-JGZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Michael A. Feaster appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the computation of his
custody credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the
denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800,
* 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).
FILED
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-16747
805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Feaster contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) misinterpreted District
of Columbia law when it issued its Program Statements 5880.33 and 5884.02, and
has miscalculated his custody credits in a variety of ways. As discussed by the
district court, Feaster’s arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the
applicable law. Moreover, the record shows that the BOP properly calculated his
custody credits. We further reject Feaster’s claim that his sentence calculation
violates the Ex Post Facto Clause because he has not shown that he was subjected
to increased punishment. See Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 249-50 (2000).
Feaster next contends that the district court erred by denying his petition for
a writ of mandamus. The district court properly denied the petition because
Feaster did not show that his claim is clear or that no other adequate remedy exists.
See United States v. Index Newspapers, LLC, 766 F.3d 1072, 1082 (9th Cir. 2014).
Finally, contrary to Feaster’s contention, the district judge properly adopted
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --