Unpublished Dispositionkolby L. Kristiansen, Petitioner-appellant, v. J.j. Clark, Warden, Respondent-appellee, 937 F.2d 608 (6th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 937 F.2d 608 (6th Cir. 1991) July 17, 1991

Before RALPH B. GUY, Jr. and ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN, District Judge.* 

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon consideration of the record and appellant's brief, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Kolby Kristiansen appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In 1986, Kristiansen was sentenced to a seven year term with three years special parole for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. In 1988, while in a community treatment center, he failed to return and was charged with escape. He was later apprehended and ordered held without bond. Consequently, his sentence was placed on "inoperative status" for 34 days, and he was placed in a county jail from 1988 through 1989.

Kristiansen sought an order from the district court directing the Bureau of Prisons and respondent to grant him jail time credit of 12 months and three weeks on his current sentence of imprisonment.

The district court dismissed the petition as Kristiansen was not entitled to relief. See United States v. Wilson, 916 F.2d 1115, 1119 (6th Cir. 1990); United States v. Blankenship, 733 F.2d 433, 434-35 (6th Cir. 1984). The court held that Kristiansen had already received the appropriate credit.

Kristiansen raises the same argument on appeal.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court correctly dismissed the petition for the reasons stated in its order dated January 28, 1991. Rule 9(b) (3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

 *

The Honorable Bernard A. Friedman, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.