Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03918/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03918-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3918

___________

Alisha Stevenson, * 

*

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota. 

FCI Waseca; Bureau of Prisons; *

Ricardo Rios, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 17, 2010 

Filed: July 8, 2010 

___________

Before LOKEN, BRIGHT and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alisha Stevenson is currently serving a 41-month sentence at FCI Waseca,

which is operated by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), for distribution of cocaine.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B), the BOP is authorized, in its discretion, to reduce

the sentences of inmates who were convicted of a nonviolent offense and who

complete a drug treatment program. Stevenson filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, challenging the BOP’s policy of denying such a sentence reduction to inmates

who, like Stevenson, received an enhancement to their advisory sentencing guidelines

calculation for possession of a firearm. See 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(B).

Appellate Case: 09-3918 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 Entry ID: 3681483
1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Janie S.

Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Stevenson argues that the BOP promulgated this rule in violation of the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The district court1

rejected this argument and dismissed Stevenson’s habeas petition.

We have already held that 28 C.F.R. § 550.58 was validly promulgated under

the Administrative Procedure Act. See Gatewood v. Outlaw, 560 F.3d 843, 848-49

(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 558 U.S. ---, 130 S. Ct. 490 (2009). Stevenson acknowledges

that Gatewood is controlling on this issue, but she asks us to reconsider that decision.

We have no power to do so, as “it is a cardinal rule in our circuit that one panel is

bound by the decision of a prior panel.” United States v. Betcher, 534 F.3d 820,

823-24 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Owsley v. Luebbers, 281 F.3d 687, 690 (8th Cir.

2002)), cert. denied, 555 U.S. ---, 129 S. Ct. 962 (2009). Moreover, the BOP recently

promulgated 28 C.F.R. § 550.55, which reaffirms the challenged policy and addresses

the alleged APA shortcomings that Stevenson identifies in § 550.58. Stevenson did

not enter the drug treatment program until after March 16, 2009, when this new rule

went into effect. See 74 Fed. Reg. 1892, 1892 (Jan. 14, 2009). Therefore, even if

Gatewood were not controlling, Stevenson has identified no defect in § 550.55, which

also prohibits her from receiving a sentence reduction. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s dismissal of Stevenson’s habeas petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3918 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 Entry ID: 3681483