Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03488/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03488-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Richard L. Wittman
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3488

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Richard L. Wittman, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 28, 2005

Filed: July 18, 2005

___________

Before SMITH, FAGG, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Richard L. Wittman pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm,

and was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release. The

conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. See United States v. Wittman,

No. 94-1787, 1994 WL 615692 (8th Cir. Nov. 8, 1994) (unpublished per curiam). 

Wittman later moved for clarification of his sentence, asserting that the Bureau

of Prisons (BOP) miscalculated his good-time credit. The district court1

 denied the

Appellate Case: 04-3488 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2005 Entry ID: 1929021
-2-

motion after finding that the BOP’s method of calculating good-time credit based on

the amount of time actually served, rather than on the sentence imposed, was a

reasonable interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b).

On appeal, Wittman argues that the BOP’s calculation method is contrary to

Congress’s unambiguous intent that prisoners are eligible to earn 54 days good-time

credit for every year of their sentence. He also argues that, even if section 3624(b)

is ambiguous, the district court should have applied the rule of lenity and resolved the

ambiguity in his favor.

Wittman’s arguments fail. See James v. Outlaw, 126 Fed. Appx. 758, 759 (8th

Cir. 2005) (unpublished per curiam) (finding § 3624(b) ambiguous, because it does

not clearly indicate whether prisoner’s good-time credit should be based on time

served in prison or on sentence imposed, and holding that BOP policy of calculating

good-time credit based on actual time served is entitled to deference and is reasonable

interpretation of § 3624(b)); O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 173 (3d Cir. 2005)

(per curiam) (finding § 3624(b) ambiguous and holding BOP calculation method is

reasonable; court will not resort to rule of lenity when ambiguity of statute can be

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

(same).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3488 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2005 Entry ID: 1929021