The only exception to this rule is when “there is clear evidence of unconstitutional conduct or evidence that the agency acted outside of the scope of its authority.” Bradley v. Fisher, No. 5:11-HC-2194-FL, 2012 WL 2590472, at *2 (E.D. N.C. July 3, 2012) (citing Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 603-604, (1988)). However, courts have previously examined the BOP's right to set ineligibility criteria and have found such criteria to be constitutional and to fall within the scope of authority granted to the BOP.
Given that RDAP eligibility, participation, and early release decisions are matters committed to the BOP's discretion, no liberty interest in the RDAP is created by § 3621(e). See Richardson, 501 F.3d at 420; Bradley v. Fisher, No. 5:11-HC-2194-FL, 2012 WL 2590472, at *8 (E.D.N.C. July 3, 2012) ("Prisoners do not have a protected liberty interest in RDAP participation or in the early release incentive." (citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979); Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976); Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1229 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011)).
Thus, Cotona is entitled to relief only if he can show that, in denying him early release eligibility, BOP acted in excess of its statutory authority or violated some federal constitutional provision. See, e.g., Bradley v. Fisher, No. 5:11-HC-2194-FL, 2012 WL 2590472, at *2 (E.D.N.C. July 3, 2012) (citing cases). He has not done so.