Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02686/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02686-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2686

___________

Kenneth R. James, *

*

Petitioner - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Minnesota.

T. C. Outlaw, Warden, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2005

Filed: March 24, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth R. James was convicted of forcibly breaking into a post office, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2115, and of theft of postal money orders and possession of

stolen postal money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 500. He was sentenced to 84

months imprisonment. James filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated his due process

rights by miscalculating his good time credits. The district court1

 denied the petition,

and James appeals.

Appellate Case: 04-2686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2005 Entry ID: 1882978 
2

Appellant's motion to strike the government's 28(j) letter is denied as moot.

-2-

James argues that BOP's method of calculating good time credits based on time

actually served rather than the sentence imposed conflicts with the plain meaning of

18 U.S.C. § 3624, is contrary to congressional intent, and leads to an extra seven days

of imprisonment per year. The government contends that the plain meaning of

§ 3624(b) calls for awarding good time credits based on time served and that even if

the statute is ambiguous, BOP's interpretation set out at 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 is entitled

to deference and is reasonable.

We conclude that § 3624(b) is ambiguous because it does not clearly indicate

whether a prisoner's good time credits are based on the time served in prison or the

sentence imposed. See White v. Scibana, 390 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2004);

Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). Since the BOP regulation

was adopted through the notice and comment procedure, it is entitled to deference

under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984),

and we conclude that it is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.2

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2005 Entry ID: 1882978