Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06416/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06416-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HERNAN O. CASTRO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

RAYMOND ANDREWS, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:04-cv-06416-OWW-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 21)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION TO

SUPPLEMENT TRAVERSE (Doc. 18)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXPEDITED RESOLUTION AS MOOT

(Doc. 17)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR RESPONDENT

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On February 17, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DENIED, Petitioner's motion to supplement the traverse be

DISREGARDED, Petitioner's motion for expedited resolution be DENIED

as MOOT, and judgment be entered in favor of Respondent. These

Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and

Case 1:04-cv-06416-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty

(30) days from the date of service of that order. On March 7,

2006, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findngs

and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Specifically,

petitioner acknowledges that The Mujahid decision addressing the 

identical issue here presented, 413 F.3d 991, 999 (9th. 2005) is

dispositive in the trial court. The BOP is the agency with the

expertise and authority to adopt regulations governing prisoner

good time credits in effectuating 18 U.S.C. 36424 (b)(1). Chevron

deference is owed and has been afforded the disputed regulation by

the Court of Appeals. The Rule of Lenity does not apply in this

instance as previously decided by the the Ninth Circuit. PachecoCamacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266, 1271-72 (9th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed February 17,

2006, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED

3. Petitioner's motion to supplement the traverse, filed

February 10, 2006, is DISREGARDED;

4. Petitioner's motion for expedited resolution, filed

February 10, 2006, is DENIED as MOOT; and,

Case 1:04-cv-06416-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

5. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06416-OWW -SMS Document 23 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 3