2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-18-2005 

# O gro d v . B ur P ri sons P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-4067

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " O gr od v . B ur P r i s on s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1343. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1343NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 04- 4067

________________ RA NDY OG RO D v. B U R E A U O F P R IS O N S ; JO H N N A S H , F .C .I. F o rt D ix

_______________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 04570) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Fr eda L. W ol fs on

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 18, 2005 BEFORE: NY GA AR D, VA N A NTW ERPEN a n d STAPLETON, CI RCU I T J UD GES ( Fi l ed A pr i l 18, 2005 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM R andyO gr od appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on fi l ed under28 U . S. C . § 2241. I n hi s habea s pet i t i on, O gr od chal l enges t he cal cul at i on of hi s good conductt i m e ( “G C T ”) byt he B ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) . Fort he fo ll o w ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . §§ 12 91 and 22 53 (a) . W e exerci se 1 pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s l egal concl us i ons and appl ya cl ear l yerr oneous stan d ard to it s fin d ing s o f f ac t. S ee R u g g iano v . R eish , 3 0 7 F . 3 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).

2 O gr od i s curr ent l yi ncar cer at ed att he Feder al C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on i n For tD i x, N ew J er s ey , s ervi ng a fe der al s ent ence of 70 m ont hs forcons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e . A c c o rd in g to th e B O P , O g ro d is e lig ib le u n d e r th e a p p lica b le sta tu te, 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 4 (b ), to e a rn u p to 2 7 4 d a y s o f G C T . T h e B O P ’s c a lcu latio n is bas ed on the t i m e O gr od w i l l actual l ys erve i n pr i s on, noton t he 70 mont hs of s ent ence i m pos ed. A ft eradmi ni s t r at i vel ychal l engi ng t he B O P’ s cal cul at i on of hi s G C T , O gr od fi l ed a § 2241 habe as corpus pet i t i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t . I n hi s habea s pet i t i on, O gr od ar gues t hatt he B O P’ s cal cul at i on of hi s G C T depr i ves hi m of the amountt o w hi ch he i s ent i t l ed bys t atut e. O gr od as s er t s t hat§ 3624( b) al l ow s hi m t o earn up t o 54 day s pery earbas ed on t he t erm of s ent ence i m pos ed, not54 day s pery earbas ed on t i m e ac tual l ys erved as t he B O P’ s cal cul at i on pr ovi des . T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed O gr od’ s pos i t i on and di s m i s s ed hi s habea s pet i t i on, and s ubs equent l ydeni ed hi s t i m el ym ot i on for reconsi derat i on . O grod ap peals . 1 We wi l l a f

f i r m th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s o r d e r . Wh i l e Og r o d ’ s a p p e a l wa s p e n d i n g , we r es ol ved the i s s ue i n O ’ D onal d v. J ohns , __F. 3d__, N o. 04- 2990, 2005 W L 647669 ( 3d C i r . M ar . 22, 2005) . I n O ’ D onal d, w e hel d t hatt he meani ng of § 3624( b) i s ambi guous and thus defe r r ed t o t he B O P’ s r eas onabl e i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e. See O ’ D onal d,3

2 0 0 5 W L 6 4 7 6 6 9 a t * 2 . O g ro d ’s c h a llen g e , ide n tica l to th e o n e ra ise d a n d re jec ted in O ’ D onal d, i s unavai l i ng. In sh o rt, fo r th e re a so n s d e sc rib e d in O ’D o n a ld , the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly re jec ted O g ro d ’s c h a llen g e to th e B O P ’s c a lcu latio n o f h is G C T . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on.