Quintanilla

MEMORANDUM **

Henry T. Quintanilla appeals the district court’s order denying his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse and remand, with instructions.

We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny a federal prisoner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus de novo. Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir.2000) (per curiam), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1111 , 121 S.Ct. 854 , 148 L.Ed.2d 769 (2001).

Quintanilla contends the district court’s denial of his habeas petition, for his failure to exhaust administrative remedies, was erroneous because the Bureau of Prisons maintains that Quintanilla is not in its custody, and thus no administrative remedies exist. The government concedes, and we agree, remand is necessary because the detainer it filed against Quintanilla with the Guam Department of Corrections was never executed.

Quintanilla also requests the district court be given instructions to make factual findings regarding time already served. However, the Attorney General computes such credit after defendant has begun to serve his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3585 (b); United States v. Pizzichiello, 272 F.3d…