[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            United States Court of Appeals

                                For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________





          No. 96-1938







                                    UNITED STATES,



                                      Appellee,



                                          v.



                                    GARY JOHNSON,



                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND



                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________



                          Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________



                                 ____________________



               Gary Johnson on brief pro se.
               ____________

               Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Edwin J.
               __________________                              ________

          Gale, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief, for appellee.
          ____



                                 ____________________



               
                                     October 25, 1996

                                 ____________________









































                 Per Curiam.  Gary Johnson, who is currently serving a 37
                 __________



            month sentence  in federal prison, appeals  from the district



            court's denial of his pro se  motion for  immediate release. 



            First,  he argues  that  under  18  U.S.C.    3584(a),  which



            provides in relevant part that terms of imprisonment "may not



            run consecutively for an attempt and for another offense that



            was the sole  objective of  the attempt," he  is entitled  to



            immediate release.  This argument  is based on the  erroneous



            assumption  that the  federal crime  of possessing  a firearm



            with  an  obliterated serial  number and  the state  crime of



            robbery   constitute "an  attempt" and "another  offense that



            was the  sole objective  of the  attempt" under  the statute.



            However, these  are distinct  crimes for which  the sentences



            may run consecutively.



                 Second, Johnson  argues that under 18  U.S.C.   3585(a),



            his  federal  sentence began  to run  while  he was  in state



            custody,  because that  statute  does not  specifically state



            that  a  prisoner must  be in  federal  custody to  cause the
                                           _______



            sentence  to begin running.  This argument does not take into



            account all of  the pertinent portions of the  statute, which



            provides that "[a] sentence  . . . commences on  the date the



            defendant  is received  in custody  . .  . [at]  the official



            detention facility  at which the  sentence is to  be served."



            Because  the federal  government  never designated  the state



            prison as "the  official detention facility"  where Johnson's







                                         -2-





























            federal sentence  would be  served, his federal  sentence did



            not begin to run until he reached the federal prison that was



            designated as his "official detention facility."



                 Third, Johnson argues that under 18 U.S.C.  3585 (b)  he



            is  entitled to  have  the time  he  spent in  state  custody



            credited toward his federal sentence.  The statue provides in



            relevant part: "A  defendant shall be given credit toward the



            service  of a term of imprisonment for  any time he has spent



            in  official  detention  prior   to  the  date  the  sentence



            commences  . . . that  has not been  credited against another



            sentence."   Crediting the time Johnson spent in state prison



            against  his federal  sentence would  be improper  under this



            statute because Johnson's detention at the state facility was



            credited against his state sentence.



                 Finally,  Johnson argues  that the  state court  had the



            power  to  order his  federal  and  state  sentences  to  run



            concurrently.   However,  a state  court does  not have  this



            power  where, as  here, the  state sentence  is to  be served



            first.   Any  error that  occurred in  this case  occurred in



            state court, while the federal court acted entirely properly;



            any  remedy  for  this  harm would  involve  Johnson's  state



            sentence  rather  than his  federal  sentence.   Johnson  has



            already finished  serving his  state sentence.   We therefore



            summarily  affirm   the  district  court's   order  and  deny



            appellant's motion for immediate release.







                                         -3-





























                 Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________