(D. Colorado) (D.C. No. 1:13-CV-02303-PAB).
Before KELLY, BALDOCK, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]
Robert E. Bacharach, Circuit Judge.
This is a habeas appeal brought by Mr. Gary deWilliams. Mr. deWilliams was convicted in 1988 on charges involving armed bank robbery and false statements. After obtaining parole, Mr. Williams was arrested on new criminal charges. These charges led to revocation of parole and a new conviction for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon and armed career criminal. Mr. deWilliams sought habeas relief, claiming in part that
• the federal government had relinquished custody by shuttling him back and forth in the two criminal cases,
• the Bureau of Prisons had failed to award credit for pretrial detention on the new criminal charges, and
• prison authorities had effected inter-prison transfers without affording due process.
The district court denied habeas relief, and Mr. deWilliams appeals. We affirm.
I. Standard of Reviews
Because the appeal involves only legal conclusions, our review is de novo. Matthews v. Price, 83 F.3d 328, 331 (10th Cir. 1996).
II. Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act
Federal prosecutors simultaneously sought revocation of parole and pursued new gun charges. Because the charges originated in different districts, prison officials frequently took Mr. deWilliams back and forth without getting a detainer. Mr. deWilliams contends that a detainer was necessary under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. We reject this contention.
Under the Act, one jurisdiction can obtain custody of a prisoner who is housed in another jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. App. 2, § 2, Art. IV. Ordinarily, when a jurisdiction obtains custody, it must try the defendant on the outstanding charge before returning him or her to the original jurisdiction. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 352 (1978).
Because the federal government shuttled Mr. deWilliams back and forth, he alleges violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. This allegation is invalid, however, because the federal government is considered a single jurisdiction. See United States v. Walling, 974 F.2d 140, 141 (10th Cir. 1992) (stating that for purposes of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, "the federal government . . . is considered a single state"). As the federal government shuttled Mr. deWilliams back and forth, he remained in the custody of a single jurisdiction (the federal government). Thus, the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act does not apply. See id. (stating that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act "has no application if a prisoner in federal custody in one federal judicial district faces another federal indictment in a different federal ...