FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE WALKER, No. 10-55822
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00702-PA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
LINDA SANDERS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Clarence Walker 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.
§ 2253, and we affirm.
*
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).
Walker contends that his 12-month period of home confinement should have
been counted against his 40-month period of imprisonment. This argument lacks
merit because the home confinement was imposed as a special condition of
supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) (“The term of supervised release
commences on the day the person is released from imprisonment . . . .”).
Walker also contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) had a duty to
contact the district court to resolve an ambiguity in the judgment. Because there
was no ambiguity, the BOP had no such duty. See United States v. 60.22 Acres of
Land, 638 F.2d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 1980).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-55822