* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40993

Summary Calendar

ALBERT GONZALES,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BUREAU OF PRISONS; JANET RENO, U.S. Attorney

General; KATHLEEN HAWK, Director Bureau of Prisons;

N.L. CONNER, Warden, FCI, Texarkana; RUDY CHILDRESS,

Administrator FCI-S, Texarkana,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(6:96-CV-998)

July 14, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Albert Gonzales appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application in

which he alleges that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) used inaccurate information in

its records, including a notation in his presentence report regarding a prior Texas1 Wottlin v. Fleming , 136 F.3d 1032 (5th Cir. 1998).

2 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(1)(iv).

3 See § 550.58. We express no opinion regarding the merits of Gonzales’ argument.

2 conviction for aggravat e d assault on a police officer, to make critical adverse

decisions concerning his early release, community custo dy, and periodic furloughs.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B), the BOP has discretionary authority to

grant a sentence re duction of up to one year to any prisoner convicted of a

nonviolent offense who completes a drug abuse program. 1 As an exercise of that

discretion, the BOP categorically has excluded certain classes of prisoners from

receiving sentence reductions under section 3621(e)(2), including all pr isoners who

have prior convictions for aggravated assault. 2

The BOP found Gonzales ineligib le for a sentence reduction because their

records reflected that he had a prior conviction for aggravated assault on a police

officer. Gonzales, however, maintained in his section 2241 application that his

aggravated assault charge did not result in a final “conviction” because the charge

was dismissed upon his successful discharge from probation. The district court,

however, did not address that claim. If Gonzales’ claim is meritorious, then he may

otherwise be eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3621(e)(2). 3 If

G onzales is otherwise eligible for a sentence reduction, the BOP would ha ve to4 See § 3621(e)(2)(B); Wottlin , 136 F.3d at 1035.

5 Venegas v. Henman

, 126 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 1997), cert

. denied

, 118 S.Ct. 1679 (1998);

Wottlin , 136 F.3d at 1036.

6 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

3 decide, in its discretion, whether to grant same. 4

The district court dismissed Gonzales’ suit with prejudice after concluding

that he did not have a protected liberty interest in early release. Although the

district court correctly pointed out that prisoners do not have a protect ed liberty

interest in receiving a sentence reduction for successful completion of a drug abuse

program, 5 it did not address all of the issues that Gonzales raised in his section 2241

application. The thrust of Gonzales’ position was that erroneous information in the

BOP’s records, including the notation in his presentence report regarding a 1971

Texas aggravated assault conviction, was being used by the BOP to make adverse

determinations against him concerning early release, community custody, and

periodic furloughs. Gonzales also contends that the BOP violated its statutory duty

under the Privacy Act 6 to maintain accurate records. These contentions were not

addressed in the trial court. They are not patently, facially frivolous and warrant

appropriate consideration.

The refore, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND for further proceedings

consistent herewith.