IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER ALVAREZ §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-359

WARDEN, FCI BEAUMONT MEDIUM §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Christopher Alvarez, an inmate confined within the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”),

proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The

above-styled action was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636

and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to the United

States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the

disposition of the case.

Pending before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Respondent (doc. #5).

Factual Background

Petitioner contends that the BOP has incorrectly calculated the amount of Earned Time

Credits he is entitled to under the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat.

5194. He also states that the BOP has incorrectly calculated his recidivism risk score.

The Motion for Summary Judgment

Respondent contends the BOP has correctly calculated Petitioner’s Earned Time Credits and

his recidivism risk score. Attached as Exhibit B to the Motion for Summary Judgment is a

Declaration from Deanne Moore, the Complex Case Management Coordinator at the Federal Prison

Complex in Beaumont, Texas. Ms. Moore states, in part, as follows:

To implement FSA directives, Congress directed the Attorney General to develop a

risk and needs assessment system for the BOP to determine inmates’ recidivism risk,

and the type of programming appropriate for them. In response, the Attorney

General announced the Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and

Needs (“PATTERN”), to identify inmates’ risk levels. Additionally, the BOP

identified 13 distinct needs areas to be assessed, several of which involve inmate

participation by, e.g., completing surveys or questionnaires. Once the BOP has

Case 1:23-cv-00359-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 08/01/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:

145
determined an inmate’s needs, they are to assign inmates to corresponding

programming or productive activities.

Data for the PATTERN assessment comes from many different sources [including]

the inmate’s presentence investigation report, interviews with the inmate, and other

reliable sources.

Inmates are not eligible to earn time credits prior to the date of the enactment of the

First Step Act (December 21, 2018) or prior to their arrival at their designated

facility.

Inmates earn time credits for every thirty-day period in which they have successfully

participated in Evidence-Based Recidivism Reduction (“EBRR”) Programming or

Productive Activities (“PAs”) recommended based on the inmate’s risk and needs

assessment. Inmates begin earning 10 days of time credits per 30 day period, but

upon receiving two consecutive PATTERN assessments at a low or minimum

recidivism risk begin earning 15 days of time credits per 30 day period.

To successfully participate, an inmate must be participating in EBRR Programs or 

PAs that the Bureau has recommended based on the inmate’s risk and needs

assessment and comply with the requirements of each EBBR Program or PA. 

Inmates who do not complete the individualized risk and needs assessments cannot

therefore be participating in recommended programs and thus cannot be successfully

participating.

An inmate is not considered to be successfully participating if they are placed in a

Special Housing Unit, designated outside the institution, temporarily transferred to

the custody of another Federal or non-Federal government agency, placed in mental

health or psychiatric holds, or are considered to have opted out by not participating

in EBRR programs or PAs.

An inmate may lose earned time credits for violation of the requirements or rules of

an EBRR Program or PA. Time credits lost for violation of the requirements or rules

of a program may be restored by good conduct on a case-by-case basis. Inmates may

also lose earned time credits as a sanction for a violation of prison rules.

Although an inmate may have earned time credits, they may be ineligible to apply

those credits to their sentence.

Inmates are normally screened, with the PATTERN assessment, within the first 28

days after their arrival at the institution. After their initial assessment, they are to be

reassessed in accordance with the regularly scheduled Program Review. At FCC

Beaumont, Program Review generally occurs every six months for each inmate.

Inmate Alvarez was most recently reassessed on or about December 7, 2023. Inmate

Alvarez is currently assessed as having a medium-risk level for recidivism. Prior to

this assessment, inmate Alvarez has been consistently scored as having a high-risk

for recidivism, never scoring anything lower. Should inmate Alvarez contest their

scoring, they may seek formal review pursuant to the Administrative Remedy

Program.

2

Case 1:23-cv-00359-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 08/01/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:

146
I have reviewed inmate Alvarez’s most recent FSA Time Credit Assessment which

was generated on December 3, 2023. Since December 21, 2018, inmate Alvarez has

participated in a total of 1708 programming days.

Between December 21, 2008 and April 9, 2019, inmate Alvarez was successfully

participating in EBRR Programs or PAs. During this period, inmate Alvarez earned

10 time credits for every 30 day period. Inmate Alvarez earned 30 time credits.

Between April 9, 2019 and June 4, 2019, inmate Alvarez was unsuccessfully

participating in EBRR Programs or PAs. During that period, inmate Alvarez was in

a disqualifying admit status.

Between June 4, 2019 and March 17, 2020, inmate Alvarez was successfully

participating in EBRR Programs or PAs. During this period, inmate Alvarez earned

10 time credits for every 30 day period. Inmate Alvarez earned 100 time credits.

Between March 17, 2020 and April 1, 2020, inmate Alvarez was unsuccessfully

participating in EBRR Programs or PAs. During that period, inmate Alvarez refused

to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.

Between April 1, 2020 and April 20, 2022, inmate Alvarez was successfully

participating in EBRR Programs or PAs. During this period, inmate Alvarez earned

10 time credits for every 30 day period. Inmate Alvarez earned 250 time credits.

Between April 20, 2022 and May 19, 2022, inmate Alvarez was unsuccessfully

participating in EBRR Programs or PAs. During that period, inmate Alvarez was in

a disqualifying admit status.

Between May 19, 2022 and December 3, 2023, inmate Alvarez was successfully

participating in EBRR Programs or PAs. During this time period, inmate Alvarez

earned 10 time credits for every 30 day period. Inmate Alvarez earned 180 time

credits.

In total, inmate Alvarez has earned, as of the date of this assessment, 560 earned time

credits. If inmate Alvarez is eligible to apply their time credits, 365 time credits

would be directed towards effectuating an early release to supervised release. Inmate

Alvarez would then have 195 time credits that could be applied towards prerelease

custody.

(Doc. #5-2 at 3-5.).

Standard of Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate if “the

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986);

Ellison v. Software Spectrum, Inc., 85 F.3d 187, 189 (5th Cir. 1996). A dispute about a material fact

3

Case 1:23-cv-00359-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 08/01/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:

147
is genuine only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable [finder of fact] could [find in favor of] the

nonmoving party. ” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

On summary judgment, “[t]he moving party has the burden of proving there is no genuine

[dispute] of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ” Rivera v. Houston

Indep. Sch. Dist., 349 F.3d 244, 246 (5th Cir. 2003). If the moving party meets this burden, “the

non-moving party must show that summary judgment is not appropriate by setting forth specific

facts showing the existence of a genuine issue concerning every essential component of its case.” 

Rivera, 349 F.3d at 247. The nonmovant’s burden “is not satisfied with some metaphysical doubt

as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a

scintilla of evidence.” Willis v. Roche Biomedical Labs, Inc., 61 F.3d 313, 315 (5th Cir. 1995).

Analysis

Earned Time Credits

Petitioner asserts the BOP has miscalculated the amount of Earned Time Credits he has

earned. He states he earned additional Earned Time Credits since July 13, 2023, when the BOP last

made a calculation of his credits. Petitioner contends he has earned at least 365 Earned Time

Credits.

Petitioner is correct in stating that he has earned additional Earned Time Credits since July

13, 2023. In her Declaration, Ms. Moore states that the BOP recalculated Petitioner’s credits on

December 3, 2023. According to the Declaration, during the time period beginning on July 13,

2023, and ending on December 3, 2023, Petitioner earned 10 time credits for every 30 days period. 

Further, as Petitioner contends, he has now earned more than 365 Earned Time Credits.

The record reflects the BOP has recalculated Petitioner’s Earned Time Credits since he filed

his Petition. At the time Ms. Moore filed her Declaration, the BOP had awarded Petitioner 560 days

of Earned Time Credits. Petitioner states he has earned at least 365 credits, which is reflected in

BOP’s recalculation. There is no indication the BOP has miscalculated Petitioner’s Earned Time

Credits.

4

Case 1:23-cv-00359-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 08/01/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:

148
Recidivism Risk Score

Petitioner also asserts his PATTERN score should have changed because he is now older and

more time has passed since the date of the violent acts he committed. He also contends that as a

result of Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, his criminal history points

should be recalculated.

In her Declaration, Ms. Moore states that as a result of a recalculation of Petitioner’s

PATTERN score, he is no longer considered to be a high risk for recidivism, but is now considered

a medium risk. Ms. Moore states the PATTERN score is based on 13 factors. Two of the factors

are the age of the inmate and the amount of time which has passed since the inmate committed a

violent act.

Documents submitted by Respondent show that after Petitioner turned 41, the points assessed

against Petitioner based on his age decreased from 21-12 to 14-8 (doc. #5-2 at 19 and 32). Further,

based on the passage of time, the points assessed for Petitioner’s history of violence decreased from

5-10 to 3-6 (doc. #5-2 at 19 and 32). As a result, the record indicates Petitioner’s PATTERN score

has been revised as he states it should have been.

Another factor used to calculate an inmate’s PATTERN score is his criminal history points

(doc. #5-2 at 35) as calculated at the time he was sentenced. Petitioner states that based on

Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines, his criminal history points would now be lower. He

asks the court to direct the BOP to recalculate his criminal history points.

Amendment 821 provides that in calculating a defendant’s criminal history points, a

sentencing court is no longer directed to add two additional points when the offense of conviction

was committed while under any criminal justice sentence. United States v. Claybron, 88 F.4th 1226,

1228 (7th Cir. 2023). Petitioner has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that Amendment 821

would change the calculation of his criminal history points. In addition, Petitioner cites no authority

granting the BOP, as opposed to the sentencing court, the power to recalculate his criminal history

points. As a result, Petitioner is not entitled to relief based upon Amendment 821.

5

Case 1:23-cv-00359-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 08/01/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:

149
Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any

of Petitioner’s grounds for review provide a basis for relief in this proceeding and Respondent is

entitled to judgment as a matter law. The Motion for Summary Judgment should therefore be

granted.

Recommendation

Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted and this petition for writ of

habeas corpus denied pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within 14 days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass’n.,

79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

6

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 1st day of August, 2024.

Case 1:23-cv-00359-MJT-CLS Document 7 Filed 08/01/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:

150