* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### JAN 4 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MARK ARNOLD GOODWIN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. JOHN E. SUGRUE, Warden; KATHLEEN HAWK, Director of Bureau of Prisons,

Respondents-Appellees. No. 03-6320 (D.C. No. 02-CV-517) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRISCOE , ANDERSON , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.-2-

Petitioner Mark Arnold Goodwin, a federal inmate pr oceeding pro se, appeals the order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking a sentence reduction based on his completion of a Res idential Drug Abuse Program (the Program), under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). A federal magistrate judge recommended that the petition be denied, and the di strict court adopted the recommendation after a de novo review. The court a lso denied Mr. Goodwin’s post-trial motion to reconsider. We exercise juris diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. In December of 1996, Mr. Goodwin was sentenced to 1 20 months’ imprisonment plus five years’ supervised released o n his convictions for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamin e and possession of a stolen firearm. In early 1997, he sought the benefit of § 3621(e)(2)(B), which allows a sentence reduction of up to one year upon completio n of the Program, but only for those convicted of nonviolent offenses. The Bureauof Prisons (BOP) informed Mr. Goodwin that he was not eligible for early rele ase under § 3621(e)(2)(B) because his firearm conviction placed him outside the class of nonviolent offenders, but he was granted permission to partici pate in the Program anyway. Mr. Goodwin entered the Program in August of 1997. In August of 1998, the BOP notified him that he was conditionally eligible for early release. In January of 2001, however, the BOP notified him that he was not eligible for early release,-3-

pursuant to Lopez v. Davis , 531 U.S. 230, 244 (2001) (holding BOP had discretion and authority to deny early release to c ategory of prisoners whose current offense was a felony involving carrying, po ssession, or use of firearm). Mr. Goodwin maintains that the BOP’s withdrawal of his eligibility for early release violated his rights. On appeal, Mr. Goodwin asserts that (1) the BOP app lied retroactively a judicial decision to deny him early release in viol ation of the Ex Post Facto Clause, (2) the denial of early release violated hi s due process rights, (3) the BOP did not apply the correct rules to him, which impro perly caused him to be denied early release, and (4) the BOP’s attempt to change the regulation governing eligibility for early release under § 3621(c)(2)(B) was invalid because the procedure did not comport with the Administrative P rocedure Act. Because he is a federal prisoner, Mr. Goodwin is no t required to obtain a certificate of appealability for review of the orde r denying his § 2241 petition. Bledsoe v. United States , 384 F.3d 1232, 1235 (10th Cir. 2004). We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a writ under § 2241. Id. As a preliminary matter, we recognize that Mr. Goodwin did not exhaust administrative remedies. This failure to exhaust d oes not implicate this court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Garrett v. Fleming , 362 F.3d 692, 694 n.2 (10th Cir. 2004). Therefore, we have considered the merits of Mr. Goodwin’s appeal.-4-

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal andthe parties’ briefs. Applying the standard set out above, we affirm the district court’s order denying a writ under § 2241 for the same reasons stated in th e magistrate judge’s comprehensive and exhaustive recommendation, the di strict court’s order adopting the recommendation, and the district court ’s order denying reconsideration. The district court granted Mr. Goodwin’s motion to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees on appeal. He is remi nded that he is obligated to continue making partial payments until the entire f ee has been paid. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Th e mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge