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 10-27-2005 

# P rimro se v . H olt 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 . 05-2470

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 authori 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 " P rimr os e v

. H o lt " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 325. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/325A P S -7 NOT 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- 2470

________________ M A U RI CE PRI M RO SE

v. R O N A L D R . H O L T , W a rd e n o f F C I-S c h u y lk ill

_______________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 02717) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam W . C a ld w e ll

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed ForPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L .A .R . 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

O ct ober6, 2005 B efore: S L O V ITE R , M C K E E A N D F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober27, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM M aur i ce Pr i m r os e appe al s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng hi s habea s corpus p et i t i on fi l ed p ursuantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 24 1. In hi s habea s pet i t i on , P ri m rose chal l enges the ca l cul at i on of hi s good conductt i m e ( G C T ) bythe B ur eau of Pr i s onsW 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 overthe D i s tr 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 ( BO P ) . Be c a u s e we c o n c l u d e th a tP r i mr o s e ’ s a p p e a l p r e s e n t s n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n , we w il l sum m aril yaf

firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. P rim ro se is c u rre n tlyin c a rc e ra ted a t th e F e d e ra l C o rre c tio n a l In stitu tio n -S c h u y lk ill in M in e rs v ille , P e n n s y lv a n ia , s e rv in g a f e d e ra l s e n te n c e o f

2 7 4 m o n th s im p o s e d in 1 9 9 0 . Ac c o r d i n g t o th e BOP , P r i mr o s e i s e l i g i b l e u n d e rth e a p p l i c a b l e s t a tu t e , 1 8 U. S . C. § 3624( b) , t o earn up t o 1188 day s of G C T . T he B O P’ s cal cul at i on of G C T i s bas ed on the t i m e Pr i m r os e w i l l actual l ys erve i n pr i s on, noton the ent i r e 274- m onth s ent ence i m pos ed. T he B O P pr oj ect s Pr i m r os e’ s r el eas e dat e as J une 7, 2010. A ft er adm i nis trat i velychall eng i ng the B O P ’s cal culat i on of h i s G C T , P ri m rose fi l ed a § 2241 ha beas corpus pet i t i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . I n hi s habea s pet i t i on, P rim ro se a rg u e s th a t th e B O P ’s c a lcu latio n o f h is G C T d e p riv e s h im o f th e a m o u n t to w h ich h e is e n tit led b ysta tu te. P rim ro se a ss e rts th a t § 3 6 2 4 (b ) a llo w s h im to e a rn u p to 54 day s pery earbas ed on the 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 the B O P’ s cal cul at i on pr ovi des . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr ej ect ed P ri m rose’ s posi t i on and den i ed h i s habea s pet i t i on . P ri m rose appeals . 1 W e w i l l aff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der . W e r es ol ved thi s i s s ue i n O ’ D onal d v. J ohns , 402 F. 3d 172 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . I n O ’ D onal d, w e hel d thatthe 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. See3

id . at 1 7 4 . P rim ro se ’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 o n a ld , is unavai l i ng. I n s hor t , w e conc l ude thatPr i m r os e’ s appea l i s contr ol l ed byO ’ D onal d and thus pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or der . See Thi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 27. 4, I . O . P. 10. 6.