MIGUEL KERCHERVAL V. RAFAEL ZUNIGA, No. 16-15698 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 11 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIGUEL KERCHERVAL, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15698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 87month 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
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.
