Gary Brown v. William Duncan, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

103 F.3d 137 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Gary BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William DUNCAN, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-55948. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 2, 1996. * Decided Dec. 5, 1996. Before: SNEED, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Gary Brown, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. Brown contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition because he is entitled to sentencing credit for nine months he spent in custody prior to his current confinement. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Calderon v. Prunty, 59 F.3d 1005, 1008 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm. 3 A writ of federal habeas corpus shall not be granted to a prisoner unless he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of…