*Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 

1 United States v. Edwards, No. 96-60667 (5th Cir. May 5, 1997) (unpublished).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10019

GARLAND EDWARDS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GEORGE E. KILLINGER, Warden,

Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Worth,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(4:97-CV-849-A)

August 14, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Garland Edwards, convicted on a guilty plea of conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute cocaine, appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons assigned, we affirm.

There was no direct appeal ofEdwards’ conviction or sentence, but he moved

for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. This

motion was denied; we affirmed on appeal.1 Edwards then sought permission to
 

2

 516 U.S. 137 (1995).

 

3

In Re: Edwards, No. 97-00546 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 1997) (unpublished).

 

4 Ojo v. I.N.S., 106 F.3d 680 (5th Cir. 1997).

2

file a successive section 2255 petition in which he would seek to challenge the

enhancement of his sentence for possession of a firearm in light of the decision in

Bailey v. United States.

2

 We denied that motion.3 The instant petition followed.

A hearing was conducted by a magistrate judge who issued a report with the

recommendation that Edwards’ habeas petition be denied. Edwards filed

objections. The district court adopted the report of the magistrate judge. Edwards

moved for reconsideration; the motion was denied. He then filed a notice of appeal

of the district court’s judgment and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

The magistrate judge granted IFP. The district judge construed the notice of appeal

as a motion for a certificate of appealability and issued an order denying a COA.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal of a judgment denying a section 2241 petition, no

COA is required.4

Edwards contends that the district court erred in denying his claim that the

Bureau of Prisons violated his due process and equal protection rights by denying

him a one-year sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) because of the

enhancement of his sentence under section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the Sentencing

Guidelines for possession of a firearm during the underlying offense. We are not

persuaded.

The contentions advanced by Edwards are foreclosed by dispositive decisions
 

5 Venegas v. Henman, 126 F.3d 760 (5th Cir. 1997).

 

6 Hawkins v. Agricultural Mktg. Serv., Dept. of Agric., 10 F.3d 1125, 1131-32 (5th Cir.

1993).

3

of this court. He does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in a

discretionary early release under section 3621(e)(2)(B).5 Nor may he demonstrate

an equal protection violation by merely pointing to a disagreement among the

circuits as to the interpretation to be given this statute. We have held that

“disagreement between the circuits on the interpretation of a federal statute is a

matter which either the Supreme Court or Congress should resolve; it does not

violate the equal protection rights of the person subjected to the ‘more burdensome

interpretation.’”6

The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.