Rafi Shotland v. David Duncan, No. 08-17243 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 11 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAFI SHOTLAND, No. 08-17243 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00188-JMR v. MEMORANDUM * DAVID DUNCAN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John M. Roll, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 5, 2011 ** Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Rafi Shotland appeals pro se from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 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). Shotland contends that the time spent in federal custody awaiting sentence should be credited toward his federal sentence. Contrary to Shotland s contention, the district court did not err in determining that Shotland was not entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the time he spent in presentence custody. The state maintained primary jurisdiction over Shotland during this period, and Shotland was given credit for this time toward his state sentence. See Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1366-67 (9th Cir. 1991) (state retains primary jurisdiction over state prisoner transferred to federal custody by writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum); see also United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334 (1992) (under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), a defendant may not receive double credit for presentence detention time). We construe appellant s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 2 08-17243
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.
