United States v. Jay

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-3875 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:20-cr-00195-DCN-1 v. MEMORANDUM* DONALD JOE JAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. Donald Joe Jay appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 14-month sentence imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Jay contends that the district court erred by failing to award him credit under * 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). 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) for time served on “related incarceration” at the Fort Hall tribal justice center. This claim fails because § 3585(b) “does not authorize a district court to compute the credit at sentencing.” United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334 (1992). Rather, the Bureau of Prisons makes that determination after the sentence is imposed. See id. at 334-36. To the extent Jay argues that the district court should have exercised its discretion to impose a shorter sentence to account for the time he spent in tribal custody, he has not shown that the court abused its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The court reasonably concluded that such a reduction was unwarranted because the time Jay served in tribal custody was applied to his sentence in those proceedings. AFFIRMED. 2 24-3875