P.

DISCUSSION

Defendant acknowledges in his opening brief that Brown had just been decided prior to the filing of his brief and the decision is adverse to his contention. Defendant notes that Brown was not yet final when he filed his brief. Defendant’s claim that he is entitled to additional custody credits pursuant to legislative amendments to section 4019 in January 2010 was rejected on both statutory construction and equal protection grounds by the California Supreme Court in Brown,

Defendant does not challenge the trial court’s award of custody credits in case Nos. 1414349 and 1425708. Under the formula applied to defendant in case Nos. 1231025 and 1246735, the actual number of custody days are divided by four, the remainder if any is dropped, and the resulting whole number quotient is multiplied by two to obtain the number of conduct credits. (People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1283.)

3 supra, 54 Cal.4th at pages 319-330. The Brown decision is dispositive of defendant’s contentions and we are bound by our high court’s opinion. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

4