FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 21, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 27 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cv -0 00 86 -LGW -J EG DANNY L EE WRIGHT, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us ANTHONYHAYNES, W ard en , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 21 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:Dan ny Lee Wrig ht , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal s t he di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f

hi s 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 41 habe as pe ti ti on . In h is pe ti ti on , Wrig htch al le ng edth e Bu reauof P ris on s’s (“ BOP”) de te rm in at io n t ha t g oo d c on du ctti m e can no t b e co ns id eredin de te rm in in g wh ethe r a p ris on er h as serve d e no ug h o f hi s s en te nc e to qu al ify for p art ic ip at io n i n t he Eld erl y Offen de r Hom e Det en ti onPil otPro gr am . On ap pe al , Wrig htarg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby uph ol di ng th e BOP’s in te rp ret at io n a ndby con cl ud in g t ha t h e was no t el ig ib le forth e p il otpro gr am . Wrig htals o c on te nd s t ha t the BOP’s in te rp ret at io n v io la te s t he Adm in is tra ti ve Pro cedur e Act , 5 U.S.C. § 55 1, et seq ., bec au se th e BOP d idno t ex pl ai n i ts de ci si on no t t o c on si de r go odco nduc t t im e. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we affi rm . I. Wrig htfil eda pr o s e 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 1 p et it io n c ha ll en gi ng th e BOP’s de te rm in at io n t ha t h e was no t el ig ib le to pa rti ci pa te in th e el de rly offe nd er p il ot pr og ram . He arg ue d t ha t the BOP h adim pr op erl y co nc lu de d tha t h is go od
co nduc t t im e co ul d n otbe co ns id eredin de te rm in in g wh ethe r he ha d s erv ed
en ou gh of h is sen te nc e to qu al ify for the pro gr am . He ass ert edth atth e BOP vi ol at edth e APA by fail in g t o o ffera rat io na l re as on for it s d eci si on no t t o co ns id er g oo d c on du ctti m e. 2The di stric t co urt d en ie d Wrig ht ’s § 2 24 1 p et it io n. Th e co urt o bs erv edth at

th e Sec on d C ha nc e Actof 2 00 7, wh ic h e st ab li sh edth e el de rly offe nd er p il ot pr og ram , sp eci fie d t ha t a p ris on er m us t h av e se rv edth e g reat er o f 10 y ears or “ 75 pe rcen t o f th e te rm

of i m pr is on m en t t o wh ic h t he off en de r was sen te nc ed ” in ord er to qu al ify for the pro gr am . The co urt co nc lu de d t ha t “ [t]he ph ras e ‘term of im pr is on m en t t o wh ic h t he off en de r was sen te nc ed ’ un equi vo cal ly refers to th e se nt en ce tha t was im

po se d b y th e se nt en ci ng co urt—no t the sen te nc e im po se d
m in us an y

go odti m e cre di t[] rece iv edor a nt ic ip at ed .” The c ou rt n ot edth at , wit ho utco ns id erat io n o f hi s g oo d c on du ctti m e, Wrig htha d s erv edles s than 7 5 pe rcen t o f hi s t ot al sen te nc e. Ther efo re, the co urt co nc lu de d t ha t Wrig htwas n ot el ig ib le to pa rti ci pa te in th e p il otpro gr am . II.

“ W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f habe as rel ie f un de r § 2 24 1.” Skin ne r v. Wile

y , 35 5 F .3d12 93 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). An i nm at e who wis he s t o c ha ll en ge ho w th e BOP i s i nt erp ret in g o r ad m in is te rin g a n e arl y rel eas e pr og ram , rul es , or c red it s m ay do so un de r § 2 24 1. Se e, e.g . , Byrd v. Has ty , 14 2 F.3 d 1 39 5, 1 39 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) (ad dr es si ng in m at e’s § 2 24 1 p et it io n c ha ll en gi ng th e BOP’s d en ia l o f hi s re qu es t t o p art ic ip at e in a drug ab us e tr eat m en t p ro gr am ). As p artof t he Seco ndCh an ce Actof 2 00 7, Co ng res s d ire ct edth e Att orne y 3Gen eral , inco nju nc ti on with t he BOP, to est ab li sh a pi lo t p ro gr am to de te rm in e th e eff ect iv en es s o f rem ov in g c ert ai n n on vi ol en t el de rly offe nd ers fro m BOP faci li ti es an d p la ci ng th em in ho m e d et en ti on un ti l the ex pi rat io n o f th ei r se nt en ces . 42 U.S.C. § 1 75 41 (g )(1 )(A). The Act s et s fo rth a va rie ty of cri te ria th ata pr is on er m

us t s at is fy

to be eli gi bl e to pa rti ci pa te inth e p il otpro gr am . Id
. at (g )(5 )(A). The requi rem en t re le va ntto th is ap pe al is th atth e o ffen de r m us t h av e

“ se rv edth e g reat er o f 10 y ears or 7 5 p erce ntof t he term of i m pr is on m en t t o wh ic h th e o ffen de r was sen te nc ed .” Id
. at ( g) (5 )(A)(i i). W e ag ree wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t the ph ras e, “ te rm of i m pr is on m en t t o whi chth e o ffen de r was sen te nc ed ,” in 42 U.S.C. § 1 75 41 (g )(5 )(A)(i i) p la in ly refe rs to th e te rm

of i m pr is on m en t i m

po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt atsen te nc in g, whi chdo es no t i nc lu de an y go odco nduc t t im e. Inth is cas e, wit ho utco ns id erat io n of go odco nduc t t im e, Wrig htha d n otco m pl et ed75 pe rcen t o f hi s t erm of im pr is on m en t atth e ti m e o f hi s el ig ib il it y rev ie w. There fo re, the di st ric t co urt
co rrec tl y co nc lu de d t ha t Wrig htwas n oteli gi bl e fo r th e p il otpro gr am . III. Inciv il act io ns bro ug htpu rs ua ntto th e APA, we m ay setasi de th e ag en cy ’s act io n u nd er the APA on ly if itis arb it rary or cap ric io us . W ar sh au er v. So lis , 57 7 F.3 d 1 33 0, 1 33 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) ; 5 U.S.C. § 7 06 (2 )(A). On o ccas io n, fe de ral
4co urts ha ve ch os ento co ns id er APA cl ai m s b ro ug htin supp ort o f a § 22 41 habe as

pe ti ti on . Se e, e.g ., Arri ng to n v . Dan ie ls , 51 6 F .3d11 06 , 11 11 -1 6 (9 th Cir . 20 08 ) (ad dr es si ng pri so ne rs ’ cl ai m , bro ug htin a § 2 24 1 p et it io n, tha t the BOP v io la te d th e APA whe n i t p ro m

ul ga te d arul e th atren de redth e p ris on ers in el ig ib le forth e res id en ti al dru g abu se tre at m en t p ro gr am ); Mor a-Merazv. Th oma s , 60 1 F .3d93 3, 93 8- 43 (9t h C ir. 2 01 0) (sa m e); Bou rk e v. Haw k-S

aw yer , 26 9 F .3d10 72 , 10 73 -7 4 (D.C. Ci r. 20 01 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th ata writof h ab eas co rp us is th e ex cl us iv e rem edy fo r a res id en ti al dru g abu se tre atm en t p ro gr am cla im ). Inth is cas e, Wrig htcan no t s ho w th atth e BOP’s ru le ex cl ud in g g oo d c red it ti m e fro m th e cal cu la ti on of ade fen dant ’s sen te nc e fo r pu rp os es of t he eld erl y of fen de r pi lo t p ro gr am

was a rb it rary andcap ric io us be cau se , as d es cri be d abo ve , th e ru le was c on si st en t wi th th e p la in lan gu ag e o f 42 U.S.C. § 1 75 41 (g )(5 )(A)(i i). As the rul e was si m

pl y a co ns tru ct io n o f th e ap pl ic ab le st atut ory lan gu ag e, th ere was no ne edforth e BOP t o o ffera fu rth er ex pl an at io n fo r it s d eci si on to ex cl ud e go odco nduc t t im e. Thu s, the re i s n o m eri t t o Wrig ht ’s arg um en t tha t the rul e vi ol at es th e APA be cau se itis no t s up po rte d b y a rat io na l ex pl an at io n. 1 Wright brief

ly sug g ests that the B OP should have issued a substantive or leg islative rule, 1 rathe r than a

n interpre tive rule. B eca

use Wright f

ailed to ra ise that argument befor e the district court, we do not consider it. See B ryant v. J ones , 575 F.3d 1281, 1308 ( 11th Cir. 2009) (“It is well established in this circuit that, abse nt ext raor dinary circ umstances, leg al theorie s and arguments not raised squar ely befor e the district cour

t cannot be br oache d for the f irst time on appea l.”). 5Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm .

AFFIRMED.

6