Miller v. United States of America

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 3/2/2006. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2006) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/3/2006 (be, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Miller v. United States of America Doc. 2 Case 3:06-cv-01572-CRB Document 2 Filed 03/02/2006 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA U n it e d United States District Court 11 12 For the Northern District of California U N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA P l a i n ti f f , v. ROYRICK MILLER, De fend ant. / N o . C 06-01572 CRB CR-04-0147 CRB O R D E R DISMISSING SECTION 2255 P E T IT IO N 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 N o w pending before the Court is defendant Royrick Miller's pro se petition pursuant t o 28 U.S.C. section 2255. Miller contends that the Federal Bureau of Prisons did not give h i m credit for all the time he spent in federal custody prior to his sentencing. A claim for c r e d i t against a federal sentence for time spent in custody prior to sentencing cannot be raised und er 28 U.S.C. section 2255. United States v. Espinoza, 866 F.2d 1067, 1071 (9th Cir. 1 9 8 8 ) . "Such a claim challenges the Attorney General's execution of sentence rather than the d i s tr i c t court's imposition; a 2255 petition can test only the propriety of the sentence i m p o s e d , not the manner of execution." Id. Accordingly, Miller's section 2255 petition is D I S M I S SE D . I T IS SO ORDERED. D a t e d : March 2, 2006 CHARLES R. BREYER U N I TE D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE G:\CRBALL\2006\1572\orderofdismissal.wpd Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:06-cv-01572-CRB Document 2 Filed 03/02/2006 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court 11 12 For the Northern District of California 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 G:\CRBALL\2006\1572\orderofdismissal.wpd

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?