# Sinek v. United States > District Court, N.D. California · November 9, 2023 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10077122 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** November 9, 2023 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10077122 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 CHARLES R. SINEK, Case No. 23-cv-04352-VKD 9 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. 12 13 14 Petitioner Charles R. Sinek, who is currently serving the supervised release portion of his 15 federal sentence in Oakland, California, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 16 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that he is entitled to time credits under the First Step Act (“FSA”). 17 Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Mr. Sinek has paid the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2. 18 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 19 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus from a person “in custody in 20 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 21 Review of the execution of a federal sentence is properly brought as a petition under § 2241. See 22 United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984) (presentence time credit claim); 23 Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1980) (parole decision claim); see also Mills 24 v. Taylor, 967 F.2d 1397, 1400 (9th Cir. 1992) (granting § 2241 petition alleging denial of 25 presentence time credit). The court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the 26 respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the 27 application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 1 Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001). 2 II. DISCUSSION 3 Mr. Sinek claims that he is owed “20+ months of credits” under the FSA to reduce the 4 term of his supervised release. Dkt. No. 1 at 7. Liberally construed, this claim is cognizable and 5 merits an answer from Respondent. 6 III. CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 8 1. The Clerk shall electronically serve a copy of this order upon Respondent and 9 Respondent’s attorney, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, at the 10 following email addresses: (1) usacan.ecf@usdoj.gov; (2) Michelle.Lo@usdoj.gov; and (3) 11 kathy.terry@usdoj.gov. The petition and the exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case 12 Filing System for the Northern District of California. The Clerk shall also include a magistrate 13 judge jurisdiction consent/declination form. The Clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on Mr. 14 Sinek. 15 2. Respondent shall serve on Mr. Sinek, within 60 days of the issuance of this order, 16 an answer showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondent shall file 17 with the answer and serve on Mr. Sinek a copy of all portions of his federal criminal record that 18 are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. 19 If Mr. Sinek wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with the 20 Court and serving it on Respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the answer. 21 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an 22 answer. If Respondent files such a motion, Mr. Sinek shall file with the Court and serve on 23 Respondent an opposition or statement of non-opposition within 28 days of receipt of the motion, 24 and Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Mr. Sinek a reply within 14 days of receipt 25 of any opposition. 26 4. Mr. Sinek has the responsibility to prosecute this case. Mr. Sinek is reminded that 27 all documents and communications with the Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a 1 Court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper captioned 2 || “Notice of Change of Address.” He must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. 3 Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: November 9, 2023 7 . 2 8 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 a 12 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10077122. Public record. Not legal advice.