Edgar Vasquez v. United States of America;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR VASQUEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 22-55501
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-07120-CAS-KES
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023 **
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Edgar Vasquez appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, which challenged the
Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) determination that he is not entitled to foreign labor
credit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a
* 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
JAN 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-55501
§ 2241 petition de novo, see Lane v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 2018),
and we affirm.
Vasquez contends that the BOP’s refusal to award him foreign labor credit is
improperly based on its requirement that the documents provided by Mexican
authorities contain specific language not required by treaty or statute. We
disagree. Although the documentation Mexico prepared as part of Vasquez’s
transfer to BOP custody noted that Vasquez had 712 “labour days,” Mexico did not
award Vasquez any “reduced days” towards the completion of his 20-year
sentence. Rather, the listed completion date and calculated time remaining on
Vasquez’s sentence demonstrate that Mexico expected Vasquez to serve his full
20-year sentence. Based on the information provided by Mexico, the BOP did not
err by declining to award Vasquez any foreign labor credit. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 4105(c)(1) (prisoner is entitled to foreign labor credit “which had been given by
the transferring country for time served as of the time of the transfer”).
We do not consider Vasquez’s remaining arguments because they were
either not raised below or not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the
opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We treat Vasquez’s inclusion of a “Renewed/Reformed Mexican Foreign
Labor Credits Documents/Transcripts,” which Vasquez acknowledges he did not
present to the BOP or the district court, as a motion to supplement the record. So

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-55501
treated, the motion is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --