MEMORANDUM *

Dillon Shareef pleaded guilty to three counts of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1841 with enhanced penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 2326 for victimizing the elderly as part of telemarketing fraud. He appeals his sentence of 171 months of imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The district court did not err when it refused to calculate and grant time-served credit for Shareef s incarceration in Canada and the United Kingdom while he awaited extradition on these charges. “[District courts lack authority at sentencing to give credit for time served.” United States v. Peters, 470 F.3d 907, 909 (9th Cir. 2006) (applying United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992)). “[T]he prerogative to grant credits in the first instance rests with the Attorney General, acting through the Bureau of Prisons.” Id. at 909 (citing Wilson, 503 U.S. at 333-35, 112 S.Ct. 1351). Not only was there no error here, but the government has shown that Shareef was accorded credit for time-served by the Bureau of Prisons.

2. The district court properly rejected Shareef s request for a two-level reduction in his offense level because he consented to extradition pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. The agreement regarding this potential reduction in offense level was part of a plea offer that Shareef never accepted. Therefore, Shareef was not entitled to the benefit of the proposed plea agreement. Cf. United States v. Clark, 218 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Plea agreements are contractual in nature and are measured by contract law standards.”).

3. The district court did not err when it calculated Shareefs sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1 using a loss amount of $1.8 million. At sentencing, Shareef explicitly withdrew the objection he had made to the higher loss amount set forth in the Presentence Report. When the district court reduced the loss amount to $1.8 million, counsel stated that he did not dispute that amount. Claims of sentencing errors that were forfeited at sentencing are reviewed for plain error. United States v. Evans-Martinez, 530 F.3d 1164, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008). To determine whether there was plain error, we apply the familiar test set out in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). Here, there was no error, let alone a clear error affecting substantial rights, in the district court’s determination of a loss amount that Shareef agreed to at sentencing.

AFFIRMED.