NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEOBARDO MORALES-RAMIREZ, No. 24-3681 D.C. No. 1:23-cv-00711-HBK Petitioner - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* M. ARVIZA, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Helena M. Barch-Kuchta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted February 18, 2025*** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Leobardo Morales-Ramirez appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

§ 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Lane v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 2018), we affirm.

Morales-Ramirez contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) miscalculated his good conduct time and wrongly denied him earned time credits under the First Step Act (“FSA”). As the district court correctly concluded, the BOP accurately calculated Morales-Ramirez’s release date. The record shows that he lost 859 days of good conduct time—not 286 days, as Morales-Ramirez argues—due to numerous disciplinary violations. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1); 28 C.F.R. § 541.3. Moreover, Morales-Ramirez is ineligible for application of earned time credits under the FSA because he is subject to a final order of removal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E).

Morales-Ramirez’s argument that he is entitled to reimbursement of $500 in fines imposed by the BOP in disciplinary sanctions is based on a misunderstanding of the applicable regulations and program statements.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-3681