IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 97-10070
Summary Calendar
_____________________
ISA DANASABE YUSUFU,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS;
U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE,
Respondents-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:96-CV-702
_________________________________________________________________
September 29, 1997
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Isa Danasabe Yusufu filed a motion for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asserting that he was a federal
prisoner who was improperly incarcerated in a nonfederal facility,
the Harris County Jail. Yusufu’s entire argument is based on his
assertion that his state and federal sentences should be served
concurrently rather than consecutively. Yusufu has no
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
constitutional right to concurrent sentences. United States v.
Dovalina, 711 F.2d 737, 739 (5th Cir. 1983).
Moreover, the federal government and a state are
perfectly free to make any agreement between themselves
concerning which of their sentences will be served first,
as long as the prisoner is not compelled unnecessarily to
serve his sentences in a piecemeal fashion. “A person
who has violated the criminal statutes of both the
Federal and State Governments may not complain of the
order in which he is tried or punished for such
offenses.” Gunton v. Squier, 185 F.2d 470, 471 (9th Cir.
1950). See Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254 (1922).
Causey v. Civiletti, 621 F.2d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 1980). Contrary
to Yusufu’s assertions, there is nothing in the record to indicate
that any court sentencing Yusufu did not wish to impose consecutive
sentences. Yusufu makes no argument much less a showing that he is
constitutionally entitled to serve his sentences concurrently. The
district court did not err in denying Yusufu’s motion under § 2241.
A F F I R M E D.
-2-