NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW JAMES JOHNSTON, No. 24-850 D.C. No. Petitioner - Appellant, 4:22-cv-00260-SHR v. MEMORANDUM* DANON COLBERT, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Scott H. Rash, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 20, 2024**

Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Andrew James Johnston appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying 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 Stephens v. Herrera,

464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006), 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). Johnston contends that the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”) requires the

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to apply time credits he earned under the FSA toward

his placement in a residential reentry center. However, the record shows that

Johnston does not meet the FSA’s eligibility requirements. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3632(d)(4)(C) (providing that the BOP “shall transfer eligible prisoners, as

determined under section 3624(g), into prerelease custody or supervised release”)

(emphasis added); id. § 3624(g)(1) (defining eligible prisoners). Because Johnston

does not meet the statutory requirements, we do not address his challenges to the

BOP’s implementing regulations and policies or his reliance on Loper Bright

Enters. v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024).

Johnston’s motion to compel service of appellee’s brief is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-850