Steven Christopher Chaney v. UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY, TUCSON, named as USP-Tucson; UNKNOWN PARTY, named as Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN CHRISTOPHER CHANEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY,
TUCSON, named as USP-Tucson;
UNKNOWN PARTY, named as Warden,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 19-16002
D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00033-RCC-EJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Steven Christopher Chaney appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Schleining v.
* 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
SEP 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-16002
Thomas, 642 F.3d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
Chaney’s section 2241 petition argued that his guilty plea in federal court
was conditioned on the promise of a concurrent state sentence. He argued that,
therefore, the district court should compel the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to
facilitate wholly concurrent state and federal sentences by granting a nunc pro tunc
designation of the state facility as the official detention facility for service of his
federal sentence. The district court properly denied relief because, as the Eastern
District of Kentucky has repeatedly concluded, Chaney is not entitled to relief.1
The record reflects that Chaney received the agreed-upon concurrent sentence in
state court. The BOP could not grant him any additional federal credit for time
served after his state court conviction because that time was credited to his state
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337
(1992) (defendant may not receive “double credit for his detention time”).
Moreover, Chaney’s federal sentence did not commence until April 2012, when he
was taken into federal custody to commence service of his federal sentence, see 18
U.S.C. § 3585(a), and it cannot be backdated to a time prior to this date. See
Schleining, 642 F.3d at 1247-48.
AFFIRMED.
1 “[W]e may affirm on any basis supported by the record, whether or not relied
upon by the district court.” Allen v. Bedolla, 787 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir. 2015).

-- 2 of 2 --