Case ID: f-appx_229/html/0202-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert H. THOMAS, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Cameron Lindsay, Warden, USP Canaan.
    No. 06-5075.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted for Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
    Under Third Circuit LAE 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 June 28, 2007.
    Filed July 24, 2007.
    Robert H. Thomas, Waymart, PA, pro se.
    Kate L. Mershimer, Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellee.
    Before: RENDELL, SMITH and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Robert H. Thomas appeals the order from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Thomas filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the method that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) uses to calculate Good Conduct Time (“GCT”). The BOP calculates GCT based upon the amount of time an inmate actually serves, not the amount of time to which the prisoner has been sentenced. Thomas maintains that this method is contrary to what Congress intended when it enacted 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b).

We will summarily affirm the district court’s order denying Thomas’ petition. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Summary action is appropriate where there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. In this appeal, there is no substantial question presented. The district court was entirely correct that our Court has squarely rejected Thomas’ argument before. See O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir.2005). In O’Donald, the petitioner also argued that he was entitled to earn up to 54 days of GCT per year of the term of sentence imposed, rather than just on the amount of time actually served. We held that the BOP’s interpretation of the statute, whereby it permits GCT to be earned only on time actually served, is reasonable. See id. at 174. Accordingly, we find that there is no substantial question presented in this appeal.

We will affirm the district court’s order. Thomas’ “Motion” filed on January 4, 2007, is denied.