Frederick Sutton v. Calvin Johnson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDERICK SUTTON,
Appellant,
v.
CALVIN JOHNSON,
Appellee.
No. 17-55112
D.C. No. 5:16-cv-00532-FMO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Frederick Sutton 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 de novo a district court’s denial of a section
FILED
DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 --

2241 habeas petition, see Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.
2010), abrogated on other grounds by Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231
(2012). We affirm.
Sutton argues that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the
time spent in custody between January 5, 2009, and November 24, 2009. We
disagree. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), a defendant cannot receive “double credit” –
that is, credit going towards two separate sentences – for time spent in presentence
custody. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992). Here, Sutton
spent 317 days in presentence custody. Because the record reflects that the state of
Michigan credited this time towards a prior Michigan state sentence, he is not
entitled to credit this 317-day period towards his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3585(b).
AFFIRMED.
17-55112 2

-- 2 of 2 --