United States v. Trinh, 3:10-cr-00385

In April 2010 federal agents executed search warrants on six indoor marijuana grow houses and found 1,198 plants; a semi‑automatic pistol and a silencer were found in the house occupied by Huy Trinh and his wife.
Trinh was arrested, indicted on multiple drug and firearms counts, and ultimately pleaded guilty (pursuant to an 11(c)(1)(C) plea) in March 2012 to conspiracy to manufacture/distribute marijuana and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
The plea agreement called for a 180‑month sentence; Trinh was sentenced per the agreement on June 22, 2012 and is incarcerated at FCI Big Spring.
Trinh filed postconviction motions including a § 2255 ineffective‑assistance claim (denied) and a § 3582(c)(2) reduction request (denied because his sentence reflected statutory mandatory minima).
On March 20, 2017 Trinh filed a pro se motion seeking double (2:1) credit for approximately 852 days of pretrial detention at the Glenn E. Dyer facility, claiming Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual conditions; the Court considered briefing and denied his subsequent request for more time to reply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court can award double credit for allegedly brutal pretrial detention conditions	Trinh: Glenn E. Dyer conditions were cruel and unusual and warrant 2 days credit for each day detained (~852 days)	Government: computation of credit/time‑served is for the BOP; district court lacks authority to alter executed sentence calculation; motion untimely at sentencing and not raised earlier	Denied — Court finds no basis to grant the requested double credit and directs Trinh to seek computation from the Bureau of Prisons
Whether the motion is procedurally proper after sentencing	Trinh: sought relief pro se post‑sentence	Government: district court’s authority to grant credit is limited and sentencing modification is constrained by finality rules	Denied — district court cannot grant requested relief; modification falls outside court’s limited postjudgment authority

United States v. Peters, 470 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2006) (district courts lack authority to grant credit for time served; computation is BOP function)
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010) (a final judgment of conviction generally may not be modified by a district court except in limited circumstances)