922(k). 6 . The record reflects that defendant eventually broke the conditions of his home confinement and that he was subsequently incarcerated pending trial. 7 . Since we decided Zackular, the Supreme Court has held in United States v. Wilson, - U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992), that, in the first instance, credit under section 3585 must be calculated by the Attorney General. Id. - U.S. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 1354. As far as the record before us reflects, no such calculation was requested or made here. Despite defendant’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, we reaffirm that part of Zackular which holds that pretrial home confinement may not be credited toward “official detention." Cf. Fraley v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 925-26 (9th Cir.1993)
holding confinement to home and work through electronic supervision does not equate to custody holding that electronic home monitoring constitutes confinement under the sra holding as a matter of law pretrial electronic monitoring and home confinement merits sentencing credit under its statute holding that state official can act lawfully even when motivated by hostility toward a certain protected class holding that home confinement may not be credited toward official detention