Edward Nolan Norwood, a.k.a. Polo v. Richard Ives

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD NOLAN NORWOOD, a.k.a.
Polo,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
RICHARD IVES,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-35908
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00733-CL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Edward Norwood 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
2241 habeas petition, see Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2000), and
* 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
AUG 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-35908
we affirm.
Norwood argues that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for
the time spent in custody between April 17, 2014, and October 30, 2015. 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). Because the record reflects that
the state of California credited this time towards Norwood’s prior state sentence,
he is not entitled to credit this period towards his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3585(b).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --