N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C EC ILIO C OR TEZ LOPEZ,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. M IC HAEL L. B ENOV,

R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 15-16453 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-01207-AW I-M JS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 16, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD, C LIFTON, a nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. C e c ilio C o rte z Lope z , a

fe de ra l prisone r a t Ta ft C orre c tiona l Institution (TC I), a ppe a ls the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of his pe tition for a writ of ha be a s c orpus unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2241. Lope z se e ks good c onduc t tim e (GC T) for a tim e pe riod



# FIL ED NOV 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).in whic h he fa i le d to m a ke satisfa c t ory progre ss towa

rds a GED. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de n ia l of a ha be a s pe tition under 28 U.S.C . § 2241 de novo. Bow e n v . Hood , 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th C ir. 2000). W e a ffirm the distric t c ourt. C ongre ss e sta

blishe d two progra

m s re ga rding lite ra c y

and GED a

tta inm e nt for fe de ra l prisone rs. S

e e 18 U.S.C . § 3624. Se c tion 3624(f) dire c ts the B ure a u of Prisons (B OP) to c re at e a m andatory

lite ra c y progra m , a nd § 3624(b) e sta

blishe s an inc e ntive sy ste m

for prisone rs to c ontinue the ir e duc a t ion a nd ga in the ir GEDs. Unde r § 3624(f), a

n inm a te without a

high sc hool diploma

or GED is re quire d to pa rtic i pate in a

m andatory lite ra c y

progra m “ for a m i nim um of 240 instruc tiona l hours or until a

GED is a c hie v e d, whic he ve r oc c urs first.” 28 C .F.R . § 544.70.

“ Se nte nc e d de porta

b l e a lie ns” are not re quire d to pa rtic ipat e in the m andatory lite ra c y program . Id. § 544.71(a )(3). Unde r § 3624(b), inm at e s c an qua lify for GC T by c ontinuing the ir e duc a tion. An inma te re c e ive s 54 da y s of GC T if he or she “ ha s e arne d, or is m a king sa tisfa c tory progre ss towa

rd e arning, a high sc hool diplom a or a n e quiva le nt de g re e ,” 18 U.S.C
. § 3624(b)(1), a nd only ge ts 42 da

y s of GC T if he or she ha s not e arne d or is not m a k ing sa tisfa c tory progre ss towa

rd
e arning a GED. 28 C .F.R . § 523.20(c ). An a l ie n who is subje c t to “ a fina l orde r of

2re m ova l, de porta tion, or e xc lusion” ne e d

not m a ke satisfa c tory

progre ss towa

rd
e arning a GED to be e l igible for the m a xim um possibleGC T. Id. § 523.20(d). Lope z m a d e unsa

tisfa c t o ry progre ss towa

rds atta ining his GED betwe e n Nove m be r 27, 2007 a

nd Se p te m

be r 23, 2011. As a

re sult, Lope z re c e i ve d 42 da y s of GC T inste a d of 54 da

y s of GC T e a c h y e a

r— losing 48 tota

l da y s of GC T. The
m a gistra te judge re c om

m e nde d tha t Lope z ’ s ha

be a s c orpus pe tition bede nie d. The distric t c o urt a dopte d this re c om m e ndation a

nd de n ie d the pe tition. Lope z m a k e s two a

rgum e nts on a

ppe a l . He first a

rgue s tha t TC I e m p loy e e s we re not a

uthoriz e d to de te rm ine his sta tus in theGED progra

m be c a use , a s e m ploy e e s of a

priva te c o rre c tiona l institution, the y we re not B OP sta ff. The B OP
re gula tions a re am biguous a bout w ho c an de c i de whe the r an inm a te ’ s progre ss is
satisfa c tory , but B OP guida nc e doc um e nts instruc t tha t e duc a tion sta ff or the
e duc a tion de pa

rtm e nt a t e a c h institution m

a ke this de te rm ination. C o m pare 28 C
. F.R . § 544.73 w ith B OP Progra m State m e nt 5350.28 a

nd B OP Progra m Sta t e m e nt 5884.03. In our vie w, the B OP’ s inte rpre tations of its re gula t ions a re ne ithe r pla inly

e rrone ous nor inc onsiste nt with the re gula tions. Ac c o rdingly , the s e inte rpre tations of its re g u lations a re e ntitle d to de fe re nc e . Se e A u e r v . Robbins , 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997). Unde r va lid B OP guida

nc e , TC I e m

ploy e e s a re a uthoriz e d to de te rm ine Lope z ’ s e duc a tion sta tus, a nd, c orre spondingly , his GC T e ligibility
. 3Lope z argue s se c ond tha t he should beawarde d GC T in full be c a use he is
e xe m pt from pa rtic ipating in the

lite ra c y progra m a s a se nte nc e d de porta

ble a lie n. Although se nte nc e d de porta ble a lie ns a

re not re quire d to pa

rtic ipate in the lite ra c y program , 28 C .F.R . § 544.71(a)(3), the y still m u st m a k e satisfa c tory

progre ss towa rds e arning the ir GEDs to e arn the m a xim um 54 da y s of GC T, 18 U.S.C . § 3624(b). It is only an a lie n subje c t to “ a fina l orde r of re m ova l , de porta tion, or e xc lusion” who c an e arn the full 54 da y s of GC T without m a king
satisfa c tory

progre ss. 28 C .F.R . § 523.20(d). W hile he wa s a

se nte nc e d de porta

ble
a lie n, Lope z wa s not subje c t to a fina l orde r of re m ova l , de porta tion, or e x c l usion. He is not e ligible to a c c rue the m a xim um inc e ntive tim e . Se e id. §§ 523.20(c )(2), (d). AFFIRM E D.

4