NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL KERCHERVAL, No. 16-15698
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00845-SMS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RAFAEL ZUNIGA, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sandra M. Snyder, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted May 8, 2017***
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Kercherval 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. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Kercherval challenges the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) calculation of his
term of imprisonment. Kercherval was taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals
Service on October 18, 2006. On December 17, 2007, he was sentenced to an 87-
month term of imprisonment in the District of Nevada. On November 19, 2008, he
was sentenced to a concurrent 188-month term of imprisonment in the Eastern
District of California. He was committed to BOP custody on December 23, 2008.
Kercherval acknowledges that the BOP aggregated his sentences and credited him
with 427 days that he served in custody prior to the imposition of his Nevada
sentence. However, Kercherval argues that the time between imposition of his first
sentence and the day he arrived at a BOP institution should be counted as pretrial
detention credit toward his second sentence. Contrary to his argument,
Kercherval’s Nevada sentence commenced when it was imposed, as did his
Eastern District of California sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Therefore, he is
not entitled to receive any more pretrial credit than he did. See id.; see also United
States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-15698