United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ernie Jermaine Savannah, Defendant-appellant, 145 F.3d 1343 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Federal prisoner Ernie Jermaine Savannah appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion requesting credit towards his federal sentence for the time spent in state custody. Alternatively, Savannah requested that the district court impose his federal sentence to run concurrent to his state sentence, which the district court denied. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Savannah contends that the district court erred by refusing to give him jail credit against his federal sentence. To the extent that Savannah was asserting a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, his contention lacks merit because Savannah is not entitled to federal credit for time that was applied to his state sentence. See 18 U .S.C. § 3585.

Savannah also contends that the district court erred by denying his request that the court impose his federal sentence concurrent with his state sentence. To the extent that Savannah was making a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, his contention lacks merit because Savannah has no constitutional right to serve his federal and state sentences concurrently. See United States v. Mun, 41 F.3d 409, 413 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that a defendant's due proccess rights are not violated if he is deprived of the opportunity to serve federal and state sentences concurrently).

To the extent that Savannah was asking the district court to correct a sentencing error, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35, the motion was untimely. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35.

Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying Savannah's motion.

AFFIRMED.¹