NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEOBARDO MORALES-RAMIREZ, No. 24-3681 D.C. No. 1:23-cv-00711-HBK Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MEMORANDUM*

M. ARVIZA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Helena M. Barch-Kuchta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted February 18, 2025***

Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Leobardo Morales-Ramirez appeals pro se from the district

court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see

Lane v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 2018), we affirm.

Morales-Ramirez contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)

miscalculated his good conduct time and wrongly denied him earned time credits

under the First Step Act (“FSA”). As the district court correctly concluded, the

BOP accurately calculated Morales-Ramirez’s release date. The record shows that

he lost 859 days of good conduct time—not 286 days, as Morales-Ramirez

argues—due to numerous disciplinary violations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1); 28

C.F.R. § 541.3. Moreover, Morales-Ramirez is ineligible for application of earned

time credits under the FSA because he is subject to a final order of removal. See

18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E).

Morales-Ramirez’s argument that he is entitled to reimbursement of $500 in

fines imposed by the BOP in disciplinary sanctions is based on a misunderstanding

of the applicable regulations and program statements.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-3681