
    Sebastian Leigh ECCLESTON, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-56065.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 7, 2016.
    Filed April 14, 2016.
    Stephen R. Sady, FPDOR-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S., Alexander Baier Schwab, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges,
   MEMORANDUM

Sebastian Eccleston appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition, which challenged the Bureau of Prisons’s discretionaiy denial of a nunc pro tunc designation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the district court’s denial of the habeas petition de novo. Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.2010), abrogated on other grounds by Setser v. United States, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 1463, 1473, 182 L.Ed.2d 455 (2012). We affirm.

Eccleston argues that the Bureau of Prisons was bound by the state judgment, which provides that the state and federal sentences run concurrently. However, the original state judgment was superseded by a new judgment, which essentially gave Eccleston credit for his federal sentence. The stipulated order, bearing the written approval and signatures of petitioner and his lawyer, specifically states, “[b]ecause of the chronology of how the pleas and sentences were entered, and the operation of federal law, it has become clear that it is not possible for the sentences to be served concurrently.” The district court correctly held that the new state judgment does not order that the new state sentence' run concurrently with the federal sentence. In any event, the state court has no control over the federal sentence. United States v. Yepez, 704 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc) (per curiam); Taylor v. Sawyer, 284 F.3d 1143, 1151-52 (9th Cir.2002), abrogated on other grounds by Setser, 132 S.Ct. at 1473.

We decline to consider the remaining arguments, which were raised for the first time on appeal. Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2. (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     