Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:04-CV-525-Y.
December 29, 2004
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 of petitioner Mary Elizabeth Williams, along with the November 17, 2004, findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge gave the parties until December 8 to file written objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendation. As of the date of this order, no written objections have been filed.
The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this case, and has reviewed for clear error the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge filed on November 17, 2004. The Court concludes that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be denied for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions, as modified herein.
Petitioner Williams contends that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is providing good-time credit towards her sentence in a manner contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). That section allows that the BOP may afford credit towards the service of a sentence of "up to 54 days at the end of each year of the prisoner's term of imprisonment. . . ." Specifically, Petitioner claims that she is entitled to good-time credit against the "sentence imposed," as opposed to the BOP's construction of the statute to provide such credit for each year actually served. The BOP has promulgated a rule implementing its interpretation of § 3624(b), and also issued its Program Statement 5880.28. Although the Fifth Circuit has not yet determined whether § 3624(b) creates a constitutionally protected interest in good-time credits, the Court assumes, without deciding, that a federal inmate does have a constitutionally protected interest in such credits.
18 U.S.C.A. 3624(b)(1) (West 2000).
See 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 (2004) ("Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) . . . an inmate earns 54 days credit toward service of sentence (good conduct time credit) for each year served") (emphasis added).
See Belasco v. Bidden, No. 03-11049, 2004 WL 376901, at *1 (5th Cir. March 1, 2004) (unpublished).
See Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) (assuming without deciding).
Although the Fifth Circuit has not yet addressed the issue, other circuit courts have determined that the BOP's interpretation of § 3624(b) as embodied in 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 is reasonable and entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. V. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984). Several of this Court's judges have also rejected good-conduct-time claims similar to those of petitioner, and upheld the BOP's interpretation and application of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). Based upon these persuasive authorities, this Court likewise concludes that the BOP's method of calculation of good-time credit is reasonable and entitled to deference. Thus, Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus must be denied.
See White v. Scibana, No. 04-2410, 390 F.3d 997, 2004 WL 2749863, at *3-4 (7th Cir. Dec. 2, 2004); Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266, 1269-71 (9th Cir. 2001), cert. den'd, 535 U.S. 1105 (2002); Brown v. Hemingway, No. 02-1948, 2002 WL 31845147, at * 1 (6th Cir. Dec. 16, 2002) (unpublished).
See Pollard v. Van Buren, No. 4:04-CV-642-A, 2004 WL 2645548, at *1 (N.D.Tex. Nov. 18, 2004) (nothing that calculating good-time credit on time actually served is a reasonable interpretation); Belasco v. Bidden, No. 1:03-CV-165-C, 2004 WL 2381248, at *2 (N.D.Tex. Oct. 22, 2004) ("Petitioner's challenge to the method of the Bureau of Prisons's calculation of good-time credits is without merit"); Martinez v. Wendt, No. 3:03-CV-826-L, 2003 WL 22456808, at *2-4 (N.D.Tex. Oct. 24, 2003), report and recommendation adopted, 2003 WL 22724755 (N.D.Tex. Nov. 18, 2003).
It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge should be, and are hereby, ADOPTED, as modified herein.
It is further ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be, and is hereby, DENIED.