Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02508/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02508-0/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. 05-2508

___________

Alan Bernitt; John J. Villa, CIV *

04-4140; Kenneth Ferguson, CIV *

04-4133; Robert J. Kinney, CIV *

04-4135; Keith Koski, CIV 04-4136; *

Matthew Diame Berry, CIV 04-4179; *

Timothy C. Whitfield, Sr., CIV *

04-4126; Odin Dylan Payne, CIV *

04-4146; Leroy Young, CIV 04-4161; *

Dean R. Wiese, CIV 04-4162; Darlis *

L. Miller, CIV 04-4175; Bobby Dale *

Smith, CIV 04-4176; Hector Gonzalez, *

CIV 04-4183; Kurt Cargle, CIV *

04-4188; Gary D. Wininger, CIV * Appeal from the United States

04-4189; Billy Joe Worley, Jr., CIV * District Court for the

04-4190; Patrick Sean Freel, CIV * District of South Dakota.

04-4158; Maury Turner, CIV 04-4198; *

Darren Douglas, CIV 04-4199; Roger *

Leigh Oehler, CIV 04-4157; Harold * [PUBLISHED]

Ryan, CIV 04-4214; Everett Smith, *

CIV 05-4012; Randy Dann, CIV *

05-4015; Timothy Wiles Haynes, CIV *

05-4026; Robert Leuthauser, CIV *

05-4046; Myron R. Tallman, CIV *

05-4051, *

Appellants, *

*

v. *

*

R. Martinez, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Appellate Case: 05-2508 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990526
1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of South Dakota.

2

Section 3624(b)(1) provides:

[A] prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year . . .

may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner’s sentence, beyond the

time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year of the prisoner’s term of

imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year of the term, subject to

determination by the [BOP] that, during that year, the prisoner has displayed

exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations. . . . [C]redit

for the last year or portion of the year of the term of imprisonment shall be

prorated and credited within the last six weeks of the sentence.

-2-

Submitted: December 22, 2005 

Filed: December 28, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, all inmates at the Yankton Federal Prison Camp in South Dakota,

appeal the district court’s1

 denial of their consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas

petitions, in which they challenge the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) calculation of their

good conduct time (GCT) under 18 U.S.C. § 3624.2

 Appellants contend that their

GCT should be calculated based upon the length of incarceration imposed at

sentencing, rather than--as provided by BOP policy, set out at 28 C.F.R. § 523.20

(2005)--based on the time actually served by the inmate.

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

indicate whether a prisoner’s GCT is based on the time served in prison or the

sentence imposed. Because section 3624(b) is ambiguous, we must defer to the

BOP’s interpretation if it is reasonable. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.

Appellate Case: 05-2508 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990526
-3-

Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844-45 (1984). We agree with our sister circuits that

the BOP’s interpretation of section 3624(b) is reasonable. See Brown v. McFadden,

416 F.3d 1271, 1273 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (finding § 3624(b)(1) ambiguous

and holding BOP policy of calculating GCT based on actual time served is entitled to

deference as it is reasonable); Yi v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 412 F.3d 526, 533-34 (4th

Cir. 2005) (same); Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir. 2005) (per

curiam) (same); O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam)

(same); Perez-Olivio v. Chavez, 394 F.3d 45, 51-53 (1st Cir. 2005) (same); White v.

Scibana, 390 F.3d 997, 999-1003 (7th Cir. 2004) (same), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 2921

(2005); Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 2001) (same),

cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1105 (2002).

Appellants’ remaining argument is that, even if section 3624(b) is ambiguous,

the district court should have applied the rule of lenity and resolved the ambiguity in

their favor. This argument lacks merit. We do not resort to the rule of lenity where,

as here, we can otherwise resolve the ambiguity of the statute. See O’Donald, 402

F.3d at 174; Perez-Olivio, 394 F.3d at 53-54.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2508 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/28/2005 Entry ID: 1990526