Cisneros-Flores v. Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEJANDRO CISNEROS-FLORES, No. 25-5849 D.C. No. Petitioner - Appellant, 4:25-cv-00267-RM--MAA v. MEMORANDUM* WARDEN - Safford F.C.C., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2026** Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Alejandro Cisneros-Flores appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Lane v. Salazar, 911 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2018), we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).  Cisneros-Flores seeks restoration of time credits earned under the First Step Act (“FSA”) that he claims the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) wrongfully took from him after a prison transfer. However, the record shows, and Cisneros-Flores does not contest, that he was convicted of possessing heroin with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(i), and the sentencing court found he was a leader or organizer of the offense when calculating his offense level. Contrary to Cisneros-Flores’s argument, these circumstances make him ineligible to receive FSA credits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxv) (a prisoner “is ineligible to receive time credits” if the prisoner is serving a sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) relating to possession with intent to distribute heroin and the sentencing court found that the offender was an organizer or leader of the offense under the Guidelines). Because Cisneros-Flores is statutorily ineligible for FSA time credits, we do not address his argument that the BOP is improperly determining eligibility or his reliance on Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). AFFIRMED. 2 25-5849