
    Roger Lee REED, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carol HOLINKA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-3334.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    April 22, 2011.
    Roger Lee Reed, Oxford, WI, pro se.
    Before MURPHY, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

Roger Lee Reed appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition seeking early release from federal prison. We affirm.

Mr. Reed was convicted under Kansas law for committing theft while on probation. The state court imposed a prison sentence of fifty-seven months. Shortly after his state conviction, Mr. Reed pled guilty in federal court to illegal possession of a firearm. The court sentenced him to thirty-six months to run consecutively to his state sentence. On May 31, 2007, while serving his state sentence, Mr. Reed was erroneously transferred to federal custody. Upon discovering this administrative error, federal authorities promptly returned him to Kansas. On April 3, 2009, Mr. Reed completed his state sentence and was transferred back to federal custody to serve out his federal sentence. Time mistakenly spent in federal custody was credited against his state sentence.

On appeal, Mr. Reed makes two arguments for early release. First, he contends his federal sentence actually commenced on May 31, 2007 (not April 3, 2009) when he was erroneously transferred to federal custody. Second, he says he should have received credit against his federal sentence for time served before April 3, 2009. The district court rejected both these arguments. Relying on Binford v. United States, 436 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006), and Stroble v. Terrell, 200 Fed.Appx. 811 (10th Cir.2006) (unpublished), the court held that Mr. Reed’s federal sentence commenced on April 3. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(a). Moreover, it held that no time served before April 3 could be credited against his federal sentence because that time had already been credited against his state sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). After reviewing the record ourselves, we cannot disagree with the district court. Accordingly, and for substantially the same reasons given by the court in its thorough order, we affirm the denial of Mr. Reed’s habeas petition and deny his “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Summary Judgment Rule 56(a — g).” 
      
       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
     