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 11-17-2005 

# P anek v . Apk e 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 . 05-1200

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 a nova . 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " P a ne k v . Ap ke r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 215. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/215NOT 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- 1200

________________ AL E XANDE R P ANE K, A ppel l ant

v. C R A I G A PK E R , W ar den, A l l enw ood L ow Secur i t yC or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on

____________________________________ 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- 02107) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

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

N ovember2, 2005 Be f o r e : M CK EE, FUEN TES AND NY GA AR D, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: N ovember17, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A l exande rPanek, pr es ent l yi ncar cer at ed ata fe der al fac i l i t yi n A l l enw ood, Penns y l vani a, appea l s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of a ha beas pet i t i on t hathe br ought p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 1 . W e wi l l a f f i r m.2

In 2 0 0 0 , P an ek w as se n tenc ed b ythe U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e N o rth ern D istric t o f

N e w Y o rk to 1 5 1 m o n th s in p riso n . P u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 4 (b ), P a n e k is e lig ib le to e a rn g o o d c o n d u c t ti m e . T h a t sta tu te p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt:

[A ] pr i s onerw ho i s s ervi ng a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof m or e than 1 y earot hert han a t erm of i m pr i s onm entfort he dur at i on of the pr i s oner ’ s l i fe, m ayr ece i ve cr edi tt ow ar d t he s ervi ce of t he pr i s oner ’ s s ent ence , bey ond t he t i m e s erved, of up t o 54 day s att he end of e ach y earof the pr i s oner ’ s t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , begi nni ng att he end of

t he fi r s ty earof the t erm , s ubj ectt o det erm i nat i on byt he B ur eau of

Pr i s ons t hat , dur i ng t haty ear , t he pr i s onerhas di s pl ay ed exem plarycom pli ance w i t h inst i tuti on al dis ci pli naryregul at i on s. § 3 62 4( b) ( 1) . Bas e d o n i t s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of t hi s t e xt , t he Bur e a u o f P r i s on s ( BO P) ca lculated that P an ek w o u ld b e a b le t o ea rn u p to 5 9 2 d ay s o f g o o d co n d u ct t im e. B O P ’s R e s p o n s e , 2 . In P a n e k ’s v ie w , h o w e v e r, h e s h o u ld b e a b le to e a rn u p to 6 8 0 d a y s . H abea s Pet i t i on, 4. B O P ’s c a lcu latio n o f

a p riso n e r’s g o o d c o n d u c t ti m e is b a se d o n th e tim e a c tu a lly se rv e d in p riso n . Its c a lcu latio n a c c o u n ts f o r th e f a c t th a t th e p riso n e r’s se n ten c e is i ncr ement al l ys hort ened a s good conductt i m e i s aw ar ded ea ch y ear . See O ’ D onal d v. J ohns , 402 F. 3d 172, 173 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , r ehea r i ng en banc deni ed ( or derent er ed O ct ober4, 2005) . A ppeal i ng t o w hathe vi ew s as t he pl ai n l anguage of the s t atut e, Panek ar gues , how ever , t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o earn up t o 54 day s pery earbas ed on the s ent ence i m pos ed byt he j udge, nota l es s erquant i t ybas ed on t i m e ac tual l ys erved. See A ppel l ant ’ s B r i ef, 2- 10.A s h e is a w a re , s e e R e p ly B ri e f , p a ss im , Panek’ s cl ai m i s i dent i cal t o t hatr ai s ed a n d re jec ted b ya p a n e l o f

th is c o u rt in O ’D o n a ld . T h e re , w e h e ld th a t § 3 6 2 4 (b ) is ambi guous and def

err ed t o B O P’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e. O ’ D onal d, 402 F. 3d at 174. Panek as ks us t o di s r egar d O ’ D onal d’ s hol di ng, butw e ar e notfr ee t o do s o. See I . O . P. 9. 1 ( “the hol di ng of a pa nel i n a pr ece dent i al opi ni on i s bi ndi ng on s ubs equent panel s ”) ; A ugus t e v. R i dge, 395 F. 3d 123, 149 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e not e, t oo, t hatt he cour tr ece nt l ydeni ed r ehea r i ng en banc i n O ’ D onal d. A ccor di ngl y , fort he r eas ons s et o u t i n O ’D o n ald, w e m u st co n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rtp rop erlyrejected P an ek ’s chal l enge t o B O P’ s cal cul at i on of hi s good conductt i m e. F o r th e re a so n s g iv e n , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt.

3