Case ID: f-appx_471/html/0670-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Michael CRIM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael L. BENOV, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-16458.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2012.
    
    Filed March 9, 2012.
    John Michael Crim, pro se.
    Lorena Matei, Esquire, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, Mark J. McKeon, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, Dale Patrick, Esquire, Taft, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    
      Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner John Michael Crim appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Crim contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) was required to designate the programs that would qualify him for the full 12-month placement in a Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”), under the Second Chance Act of 2007 (“SCA”). The district court did not err in dismissing Crim’s petition because the SCA does not mandate that the BOP designate which of its programs would make a prisoner eligible for placement in an RRC. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 17501-17555; 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.