T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary7,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT SA J CH A H O BB S,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 1384 v. D . C ol or ado H E C T O R A . R IO S (W ard en ),

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C V - 1 2 3 9 - Z L W)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng A ppel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )( 2 ); 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c o u rt th e re fo re o rd e rs th e c a se su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. Saj cha H obbs , pr ocee di ng pro se , appea l s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of the habea s corpus pet i t i on he fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. H obbs has pr ovi ded do cum entat i on he h as been app roved to part i ci pate i n the B ureau o f P ri sons’H o b b s filed a n o p en ing ap p ell ate b ri ef o n O ctob er 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 . T h ere af ter, 1 h e file d a m o tio n a s k in g th is c o u rtto s tr ik e h is b ri e f a n d p e rm it h im to re file it. H obbs ’ s econd br i ef w as fi l ed on O ct ober24, 2006. W e gr antH obbs ’ m ot i on and cons i deronl ythe ar gum ent s m ade i n the appe l l at e br i ef f i l ed on O ct ober24. -2- ( “B O P”) R es i dent i al D rug and A l cohol Pr ogr am (“ R D A P”) butw as advi s ed he w o u ld n o t b e e lig ib le fo r a se n ten c e re d u c tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 1 (e ) e v e n if h e su cc essf

u ll yco m p let ed the p rog ram . H o b b s ch all en g es th e B O P ’s det erm i nat i on. E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 1291, w e affi rm the 1 di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of r el i ef. Pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3621( e) , the B O P has di s cr et i on t o r educe a fe der al in m a te ’s s e n te n c e u p to o n e y e a r u p o n th e s u c c e s s f u l c o m p le tio n o f

a n R D A P . Sect i on 3621( e) ( 2) ( B ) deni es the s ent ence r educt i on t o i nm at es convi ct ed of v io len t o ffe n se s. In a d d iti o n , the B O P h a s p ro m u lg a ted a re g u latio n c a teg o ric a lly deny i ng the s ent ence r educt i on t o i nm at es w hos e curr entoffe ns e i s a fe l ony in v o lv in g , in tera lia , the “c arry i ng, pos s es s i on, orus e of afi r earm orother d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n .” 2 8 C .F .R . § 5 5 0 .5 8 (a )(1 )(v i)(B ). T h is re g u latio n w a s u p h e ld bythe Supr eme C our ti n L op ez v . D a v is , 5 3 1 U .S . 2 3 0 , 2 4 4 (2 0 0 1 ). In h is § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n , H o b b s s tate s h e w a s c o n v icte d o f b e in g a fe lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f

a fire a rm , in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). H e re p e a ts th is as s ert i on i n hi s appel l at e br i ef. H e then ar gues he i s el i gi bl e forthe § 3621( e) sent ence redu ct i on becau se ( 1) hi s conv i ct i on i s non viol ent and (2) hi s offen se conductdi d noti nvol ve the us e orpos s es s i on of a f i r earm dur i ng the comm i s s i onA l ar ge numberof otheri nm at es curr ent l yi ncar cer at ed atthe fe der al penal 2 in stitu tio n in F lo re n c e , C o lo ra d o h a v e filed a p p e a ls ra isin g th e sa m e a rg u m e n ts H ob bs rai ses i n thi s appea l . W e assum e the err or i n H ob bs’ appell at e bri ef arose beca us e he a nd thes e otherappel l ant s , s om e of w hom w er e i n fac tconvi ct ed of bei ng fel ons i n pos s es s i on of fi r earm s , have f i l ed w hatappea rt o be phot ocopi es o f th e s a m e a p p e lla te b ri e f. Mar t i n v. R i os , 4 7 2 F . 3 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 0 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (“[P eti ti o n er] 3 m i sr eads Lopezi nsofa r as he clai m s that i tdo es not applyw hen [his ] offense in v o lv e d m e re p o s s e s s io n o f a fir e a rm .” ). A nyr el i ance H obbs pl ace s on War d v. B ooker , 2 0 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 6 (1 0 th 4 C i r . 2000) i s m i s pl ace d becaus e Wardw a s a b r o g a t e d b y Lopez . L op ez v . D a v is , 531 U . S. 230, 238, 244 ( 2001) ( s peci fi cal l yr efe r enci ng Wardand hol di ng t o the contr arythatthe B O P m aycat egor i cal l ydenya s ent ence r educt i on t o i nm at es w h o s e c u rr e n t o ffe n s e is a fe lo n yin v o lv in g a fir e a rm ). -3- of a sep arat e fel on y , and thu s Lopezdoes notappl y . A ccor di ngl y , he as s ert s the B O P ’s c a te g o ri c a l d e n ia l o f th e s e n te n c e re d u c tio n w a s e rr o r. H obbs ’ as s ert i on he w as convi ct ed of be i ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a fi r e a rm i s i n c o rr e c t . T h e j u d g me n tHo b b s a tt a c h e d t o h i s § 2 2 4 1 p e t i t i o n s h o ws 2 he w as , i ns t ead, convi ct ed of unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n further ance of a drug tr aff

i cki ng cr i m e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) . A ccor di ngl y , even underH obbs ’ err oneous r eadi ng of Lopez , he i s i nel i gi bl e forthe s ent ence 3 r educt i on beca us e hi s convi ct i on i nvol ved the ca rry i ng of a f i r earm dur i ng the comm i s s i on of a s epar at e fe l onyoffe ns e. 4-4-

U p o n d e n o v o rev iew o f H o b b s’ ap p ell ate b ri ef, the d istri ct co u rt ’s ord er, a n d th e e n tire r e c o rd o n a p p e a l, th is c o u rt a ffi r ms the deni al of H obbs ’ § 2241 pet i t i on. H obbs ’ m ot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a p auperis on app eal i s deni ed . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge