Thomas Creighton Shrader v. B. W. PLUMLEY, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS CREIGHTON SHRADER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
B. W. PLUMLEY, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 20-15153
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01338-LJO-JDP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Thomas Creighton Shrader appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas,
533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.
* 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
MAR 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-15153
Shrader contends that, because his Guidelines range was 188-235 months,
the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) should have deducted the 60-month term of
supervised release when calculating the release date for his 235-month sentence.
Shrader’s argument is unavailing. As the district court concluded, the record
reflects that the sentencing court intended to impose a 235-month custodial
sentence, to be followed by 60 months of supervised release. Contrary to
Shrader’s argument, this sentence was authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a),
which permits the sentencing court to impose a period of supervised release to be
served after the incarceration term authorized by the applicable criminal statute.
See United States v. Montenegro-Rojo, 908 F.2d 425, 431-32 (9th Cir. 1990).
Therefore, the district court properly denied Shrader’s petition. Shrader’s other
allegations of error by the district court are not supported by the record.
Shrader’s motion to reject the government’s answering brief is denied.
Shrader’s motion to take judicial notice of the district court’s order is denied as
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --