2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-18-2005

Ogrod v. Bur Prisons

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 04-4067

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

"Ogrod v. Bur Prisons" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1343.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1343
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 04-4067

________________

RANDY OGROD

v.

BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN NASH, F.C.I. Fort Dix

_______________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-04570)

District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson

_______________________________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

April 18, 2005

BEFORE: NYGAARD, VAN ANTWERPEN and STAPLETON, CIRCUIT JUDGES

(Filed April 18, 2005 )

_______________________

OPINION

_______________________

PER CURIAM

Randy Ogrod appeals from the District Court’s order dismissing his habeas corpus

petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his habeas petition, Ogrod challenges the

calculation of his good conduct time (“GCT”) by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). For the

following reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order.
 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). We exercise 1

plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous

standard to its findings of fact. See Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121, 126 (3d Cir. 2002).

2

Ogrod is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix,

New Jersey, serving a federal sentence of 70 months for conspiracy to distribute a

controlled substance. According to the BOP, Ogrod is eligible under the applicable

statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), to earn up to 274 days of GCT. The BOP’s calculation is

based on the time Ogrod will actually serve in prison, not on the 70 months of sentence

imposed.

After administratively challenging the BOP’s calculation of his GCT, Ogrod filed

a § 2241 habeas corpus petition in the District Court. In his habeas petition, Ogrod argues

that the BOP’s calculation of his GCT deprives him of the amount to which he is entitled

by statute. Ogrod asserts that § 3624(b) allows him to earn up to 54 days per year based

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

the BOP’s calculation provides. The District Court rejected Ogrod’s position and

dismissed his habeas petition, and subsequently denied his timely motion for

reconsideration. Ogrod appeals.

1

We will affirm the District Court’s order. While Ogrod’s appeal was pending, we

resolved the issue in O’Donald v. Johns, __F.3d__, No. 04-2990, 2005 WL 647669 (3d

Cir. Mar. 22, 2005). In O’Donald, we held that the meaning of § 3624(b) is ambiguous

and thus deferred to the BOP’s reasonable interpretation of the statute. See O’Donald,
3

2005 WL 647669 at *2. Ogrod’s challenge, identical to the one raised and rejected in

O’Donald, is unavailing.

In short, for the reasons described in O’Donald, the District Court properly

rejected Ogrod’s challenge to the BOP’s calculation of his GCT. Accordingly, we will

affirm the District Court’s order dismissing his habeas corpus petition.