Paulino Aguilera-Sandoval v. Pearce, No. 15-51124 (5th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-51124 Document: 00514135524 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-51124 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit FILED August 29, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk PAULINO AGUILERA-SANDOVAL, Petitioner-Appellant v. WARDEN PEARCE, Bastrop Federal Correctional Institution, Bastrop, Texas, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:14-CV-659 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Paulino Aguilera-Sandoval, federal prisoner # 15963-078, appeals the district court’s denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) motion seeking reconsideration of the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application that challenged the execution of his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He contends that the district court erred in finding that the nearly two-year period between the issuance of a parole warrant in Texas 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 15-51124 Document: 00514135524 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2017 No. 15-51124 and the revocation of his parole was credited against his state sentence for murder. According to Aguilera-Sandoval, the period should be credited against his federal sentence. We find no abuse of discretion, as the record supports the district court’s finding, and a prisoner is not entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for time credited against another sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 428 (5th Cir. 2011); Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 699 F.2d 693, 695 (5th Cir. 1983). To the extent Aguilera-Sandoval contends in his reply brief that he is entitled to credit for the period even though it was credited against the state sentence, he waived the argument by failing to include it in his initial brief to this court. See United States v. Jackson, 426 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
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.
