Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02652/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02652-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2652

___________

Kamal K. Patel, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Linda Sanders, Warden, FCI, Forrest * [UNPUBLISHED]

City, AR, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 5, 2006

Filed: May 11, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Kamal K. Patel appeals from the district court’s1

 dismissal of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged the method by which the Bureau

of Prisons (BOP) calculated his good-conduct time under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). We

reject Patel’s arguments. See Bernitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868, 869 (8th Cir. 2005)

(per curiam) (§ 3624(b) is ambiguous and BOP’s calculation of good-conduct time,

Appellate Case: 05-2652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2006 Entry ID: 2043645
-2-

based on time actually served, is reasonable interpretation of § 3624(b); court will not

resort to rule of lenity when ambiguity of statute can be otherwise resolved); PerezOlivo v. Chavez, 394 F.3d 45, 47, 52 n.6 (1st Cir. 2005) (BOP’s time-served

interpretation, embodied in 28 C.F.R. § 523.20, was adopted pursuant to notice-andcomment procedure and is entitled to deference).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We also grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and deny as moot Patel’s motion to transfer.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2652 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2006 Entry ID: 2043645