United States of America v. Jermaine Thomas, a.k.a. Snaps

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE THOMAS, a.k.a. Snaps,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50206
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00861-PSG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jermaine Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his ex
parte application. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Thomas, who is serving a state sentence and subject to a federal detainer
arising from a petition alleging violations of supervised release conditions imposed
* 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).
FILED
APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50206
in his 2011 federal drug conviction sentence, requested that the district court:
order his transfer to federal custody, rule on his revocation, and sentence him to a
federal term concurrent with his state term. The district court’s denial of Thomas’s
ex parte application was neither in error nor violative of his due process rights. See
Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 86-87 (1976) (rejecting argument that parole board
should have executed warrant immediately so that defendant’s imprisonment for
parole violation could run concurrently with prior sentence); United States v.
Garrett, 253 F.3d 443, 450 (9th Cir. 2001) (federal government is not required to
writ a defendant out of state custody and bring him before the federal district court
for a revocation hearing before the conclusion of state custody).
We reject as unsupported Thomas’s contentions that the district court erred
by omitting its reasoning from its order, not ordering federal authorities to respond
to the application, and not appointing counsel sua sponte.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --