Perry Peterkin v. Warden, U.S.P. Atwater

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PERRY PETERKIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
Warden, U.S.P. Atwater,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-56305
D.C. No. 5:12-cv-00935-SVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Perry Peterkin appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition with prejudice. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
denial of a section 2241 habeas petition, see Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144,
FILED
JUL 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

1148 (9th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by Setser v. United States,
___U.S.___, 132 S. Ct. 1463, 1473 (2012), and we affirm.
Peterkin contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) miscalculated his
sentence, and that it abused its discretion by denying his request for nunc pro tunc
designation of the state facility where he served his state sentence. The record
reflects that the BOP correctly calculated Peterkin’s sentence, considered the
relevant statutory factors, and did not abuse its discretion in denying Peterkin’s
request. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); Reynolds, 603 F.3d at 1151.
Peterkin also contends that the district court erred in denying his petition
because the BOP was obligated to comply with the state court’s order that his
sentence run concurrently with his federal sentence, and the BOP’s refusal to
follow the state’s order was an abuse of discretion, a violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3584(a), and a violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Contrary to
Peterkin’s contentions, the BOP is not obligated to implement a state’s
concurrency order. See Reynolds, 603 F.3d at 1151; see also Taylor v. Sawyer, 284
F.3d 1143, 1152 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The Full Faith and Credit Clause is not violated
if the BOP, a federal government agency, chooses not to give effect to a state court
judgment requiring concurrent sentences.”), abrogated on other grounds by Setser,
132 S. Ct. at 1473.
AFFIRMED.
13-56305 2

-- 2 of 2 --