2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-6-2005

Dontas v. Holt

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-1211

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Dontas v. Holt" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1063.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1063
CPS-175 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-1211

________________

ELEFHERIOS DONTAS,

 Appellant

v.

WARDEN RONALD R. HOLT

____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-02791)

District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy

__________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 

March 24, 2004

BEFORE: ALITO, McKEE and AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGES

(Filed : June 6, 2005)

_________________

OPINION

_________________

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Elefherios Dontas, appeals from the District Court’s order denying his

petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his habeas

petition, Dontas challenges the calculation of his good conduct time (“GCT”) by the

Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). According to the BOP, Dontas is eligible under the

applicable statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), to earn up to 682 days of GCT with a resulting
2

projected release date of December 13, 2013. Dontas, however, argues that the BOP’s

calculation of his GCT deprives him of the amount to which he is entitled by statute (i.e.,

784 days of GCT). Dontas asserts that § 3624(b) allows him to earn up to 54 days per

year of the term of sentence imposed, not 54 days per year of time actually served as the

BOP’s calculation provides.

This Court recently issued an opinion concluding that the BOP’s interpretation of 

§ 3624(b) is reasonable, and thus entitled to deference. See O’Donald v. Johns, – F.3d –,

2005 WL 647669, *2 (3d Cir. Mar. 22, 2005)(No. 04-2990), citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.

v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984); Stiver v. Meko, 130 F.3d 574,

577 (3dCir. 1997). We concluded that “the BOP’s interpretation comports with the

language of the statute, effectuates the statutory design, establishes a ‘fair prorating

scheme,’ enables inmates to calculate the time they must serve with reasonable certainty,

and prevents certain inmates from earning GCT for time during which they were not

incarcerated.” Id., citing Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (9th Cir.

2001). We further rejected, as meritless, the argument raised by Dontas that the District

Court should have applied the rule of lenity and resolved the statute’s ambiguity in his

favor.

Accordingly, because it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented by

this appeal, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court denying Dontas’

petition pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.