
    Miguel KERCHERVAL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rafael ZUNIGA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-15698
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 8, 2017 
    
    Filed May 11, 2017
    
      Miguel Kereherval, Pro Se
    Karen A. Escobar, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Respondent-Appellee
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Kereherval 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 the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Kereherval challenges the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) calculation of his term of imprisonment. Kereherval was taken into custody by the U.S. Marshals Service on October 18, 2006. On December 17, 2007, he was sentenced to an 87-month term of imprisonment in the District of Nevada. On November 19, 2008, he was sentenced to a concurrent 188-month term of imprisonment in the Eastern District of California. He was committed to BOP custody on December 23, 2008. Kereherval acknowledges that the BOP aggregated his sentences and credited him with 427 days that he served in custody prior to the imposition of his Nevada sentence. However, Kereherval argues that the time between imposition of his first sentence and the day he arrived at a BOP institution should be counted as pretrial detention credit toward his second sentence. Contrary to his argument, Kercherval’s Nevada sentence commenced when it was imposed, as did his Eastern District of California sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). Therefore, he is not entitled to receive any more pretrial credit than he did. See id.; see also United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     