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 4-28-2005 

# Gree ne v . Mine r 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 . 05-1299

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 " Gr e e ne v . Mine r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1300. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1300NOT 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 . 05- 1299

________________ J OHN GR E E NE v. J OHN C . M I NE R; BU RE AU OF P RI S ONS

_______________________________________ 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. 05- cv- 00113) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J e ro m e B . S im a n d le

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

A pr i l 25, 2005 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 28, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM J ohn G r eene 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, G r eene chal l enges t he1 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 2 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 3 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 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. G r eene 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 Fai r t on, N ew J er s ey , s ervi ng a s ent ence of 130 m ont hs i m pos ed byt he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. A c c o rd in g to th e B O P , G re e n e is e lig ib le undert he appl i cabl e s t atut e, 18 U . S. C . § 3624( b) , t o earn up t o 509 day s of G C T , i . e. , 54 day s of G C T per y ear of t i m e he w i l l actuall yserve. T he B O P proj ect s G reene’s rel ease dat e as O ct ober26, 2012. 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 , G r eene 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 . G r eene ar gues t hat§ 3624( b) al l ow s hi m t o earn up t o 54 day s pery earbas ed on the t erm of s ent ence i m pos ed, not bas ed on t i m e ac tual l ys erved, and thatt he B O P’ s cal cul at i on depr i ves hi m of the amount t o w hi ch he i s ent i t l ed bys t atut e. C i t i ng opi ni ons fr om s ever al ot hercour t s , t he D i s t r i ct C ou rtrej ect ed G reene’s po si t i on and dis m i ssed hi s habea s pet i t i on . G reene app eal s. 1 W e w i l l aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der . A s t he G overnm entexpl ai ns i n i t s br i ef, w e r e c e n t l yr e s o l v e d t h e i s s u e i n O ’ D o n a l d v . J o h n s , __ F . 3 d

__ , N o . 0 4 - 2 9 9 0 , 2 0 0 5 WL 6 4 7 6 6 9 (3 d C ir. M a r. 2 2 , 2 0 0 5 ). In O ’D o n a ld , w e h e ld th a t th e m e a n in g o f § 3 6 2 4 (b ) is 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. See3

O ’ D onal d, 2005 W L 647669 at*2. G r eene ’ s chal l enge, i dent i cal t o t he one r ai s ed and r ej ect ed i n 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 G re e n e ’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.