2009 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 10-26-2009 

# Alb e r t G ardne r v

. J. Gr andol sky
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1742

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_2009

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 2009 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

" Albe r t G ar dne r v

. J . Gr ando l sk

y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 329. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/329P 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. 09- 1742

___________ ALBE RT GARDNER, A ppel l ant

v. J
. G R A N D O L SK Y , W ar den

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D
. C
. C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 06127) Di s tr i c tJ u d g e : Ho n o r a b l e Re n e e M a r i e Bu mb

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober13, 2009 B e f o re : F IS H E R , JO R D A N a n d V A N A N T W E R P E N , C irc u it J udges ( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober26, 2009)2 A l bertG ar dner F o r tDi x F CI P. O
. B ox 2000 For tD i x, N J 08640- 000

P r o Se Paul A
. B l ai ne O ffi ce of the U ni t ed St at es A t t orney C am den F ederal B uil ding & C ou rtho use 401 M arketSt r eet P. O
. B ox 2098, 4th Fl oor C amden, N J 08101- 000

A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C UR I AM A l bertG ar dnerappea l s pr o s e fr om an or derbythe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey deny i ng hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus . Forthe fo ll o w ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deci s i on. I. I n 2006, G ar dnerpl eade d gui l tyt o one cha r ge of p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e h y d ro c h lo ri d e .3 T h e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e D istric t o f

M in n e so ta s ent ence d hi m t o a 30 mont h t erm of i m pr i s onm entforthat char ge, a 27 mont h t erm of i m pr i s onm entforvi ol at i ng a pr evi ous l y - i m pos ed t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and a thr ee y e a r te rm o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se . T h e se n ten c e w a s b a se d , in part , on a tw o- l evel enhanc ementforpos s es s i on of a danger ous w eapon. See U
. S. S. G
. § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1)
. T he s ent enci ng j udge r ecomm ended thatG ar dnerpart i ci pat e i n the R e sid e n tial D ru g A b u se T re a tm e n t P ro g ra m (“ R D A P ” ), if el i gi bl e. G ar dneri s i m pr i s oned atthe Feder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atFor tD i x, N ew J er s ey , and w as acc ept ed i nt o that i ns t i tut i on’ s R D A P. H ow ever , G ar dnerw as advi s ed that su c c e ss f u l co m p letio n o f

th e R D A P w o u ld n o t m a k e h im el i gi bl e forear l yr el eas e bec aus e a Bure au of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) reg u lat ion , 2 8 C
. F
. R
. § 5 5 0
. 5 8 (a)(1)(v i) (B ) (20 0 0 ), cat egor i cal l yexcl udes fel ons w hos e off ens e i nvol ved p o sses sion o f a firearm
. G ard n er c h all en g ed the p ri so n ’s deci s i on thr ough the pr i s on’ s avai l abl e admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocedur es w i thouts ucce s s . I n D ece m ber2008, G ar dnerfi l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n the U ni t ed S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rt f

o r t h e D is tr ic t o f

N e w J e rs e y . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the pet i t i on and G ar dner f iled th is tim e lyp ro se a p p e a l. II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. §§ 1291 and 2253. W e r evi ew de novo the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al ofM o re sp e c if ica lly , the re g u latio n d e n ied e a rlyre lea se to 1 i nm at es w hos e “c u rrentoffe ns e i s det erm i ned t o be a c r i m e of 4 habea s corpus r el i ef, and r evi ew fi ndi ngs of fa ctforcl ear erro r. V eg a v . U n it ed S tat es, 49 3 F
. 3 d 3 1 0 , 3 1 4 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). A
. G ar dnerar gues thatthe B O P r egul at i on, w hi ch cat egor i cal l yexcl udes fel ons w hos e off ens e i nvol ved pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm fr om el i gi bi l i tyfora s ent ence re d u c tio n , 2 8 C .F .R . § 5 5 0 .5 8 (a )(1 )(v i)(B ) (2 0 0 0 ), is “arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous ” i n vi ol at i on of the A dm i ni s tr at i ve P r o c e d u r e Ac t( “ AP A” ) , 5 U. S
. C. § 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( A)
. Be f o r e we c o n sid e r th e m e rits o f

G a rd n e r’s A P A c laim , w e w ill b rie f ly r evi ew the r el evantadmi ni s tr at i ve and j udi ci al hi s t orythat cul m i nat ed i n t he curr entr egul at i on. In 1 9 9 4 , to e n c o u ra g e p riso n e r p a rticip a tio n in s ub s t a nc e a bu s e tr e a t mentpr og r a ms s uc h a s the RD A P, C ongr es s author i zed the B O P t o r educe the s ent ence of pr i s oner s “convi ct ed of a nonvi ol entoffe ns e” byup t o one y earupon s ucce s s ful compl et i on of the pr ogr am. See 18 U
. S
. C
. § 3 62 1(e) (2) (B ). H ow ever, C on gress did not choo se t o defi ne the t erm “nonvi ol entoffe ns e. ” A ccor di ngl y , the n ex t y ea r, the B O P p u b li sh ed an im p lem en ti n g reg u lat ion
. In i t , the B O P excluded from el i gibi l i tyfor earl yrel ease tho se pr i s oner s convi ct ed of a “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” as defi ned i n 18 U. S
. C. § 9 2 4 ( c )
. S e e 2 8 C. F
. R. § 5 5 0
. 5 8 ( 1 9 9 5 )
. T h e BO P 1v io len c e a s d e f in e d in 1 8 U .S .C
. § 9 2 4 (c )(3 ),” a s w e ll as to i nm at es w ho had a pr i or s t at e or fede r al convi ct i on forhom i ci de, forci ble r ape, r ob bery , or aggravated assaul t . S ee D rug A bu se T r eatm entPr ogr ams: E ar l y R el eas e C ons i der at i on, 60 Fed. R eg. 2 7 6 9 2 (M a y2 5 , 1 9 9 5 ). 5 al s o i s s ued a Pr ogr am S t at ement , w hi ch furtherr es tr i ct ed el i gibi l i tyfor earl yrel ease byi ncludi ng add i t i on al off enses – s peci fi cal l y , drug offe ns es under21 U
. S. C
. §§ 841 and 846 w i th s ent enci ng enhanc ement s forpos s es s i on of a da nger ous w eapo n. S ee U
. S
. D ep’tof Just i ce, F ed. B ureau o f P ri sons, Pr ogr am S t at ementN o. 5162. 02: D efi ni t i on of Ter m “C r i m es of V i ol ence , ” § 9 ( A pr i l 23, 1996)
. T he addi t i onal offe ns es gener al l yhad notbeen r egar ded byfede r al court s t o be cr i m es o f v io le n c e w ith in th e m e a n in g o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c ). H ow ever, the B O P exp l ai ned that i tcon si dered a d rug of fense w i th a w eapons pos s es s i on s ent enci ng enhanc ementt o be a “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” bec aus e “pos s es s i on of a da nger ous w eapo n d uri ng the co m m i ssi on of a d rug of fense p oses a s ubs t ant i al r i s k thatfor ce maybe us ed aga i ns tper s ons or p ro p e rt y .” Id
. T he B O P’ s Pr ogr am S t at ementgave r i s e t o s ubs t ant i al l i t i gat i on, ul t i m at el yl eadi ng t o a s pl i tamong t he U ni t ed S tat es C o u rt s o f A p p ea ls ov er the v ali d ityo f th e B O P ’s a ttem p t to a d d to th e “ c rim e s o f v io len c e ” d e f

in iti o n se t f

o rth i n § 924( c)
. C om par e, e. g. , Pel i s s er o v. T hom ps on, 170 F. 3d 442, 447 ( 4th C i r . 1999) ( uphol di ng the r egul at i on and Pr ogr am S t at ement ) , w i th R ous s os v. M eni fee , 122 F. 3d 159, 1 6 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( f

in d in g th e P ro g ra m S ta te m e n t in v a lid ).6 T o r es ol ve the s pl i tand ac hi eve gr eat eruni form i tyi n appl y i ng its re g u latio n , the B O P p u b lish e d a n in ter im re g u latio n in 1 9 9 7
. T h e B O P rem o v ed the re fe ren ce to the statu tory defi ni t i on of “c r i m es of vi ol ence ” i n § 924( c) and aba ndoned i t s eff or tt o defi ne the t erm “nonvi ol entoffe ns e. ” I ns t ead, the B O P’ s new r egul at i on pr ovi ded forthe ca t egor i cal deni al of el i gibi l i tyfor earl yrel ease t o cert ai n clas ses of pri soners – i ncl udi ng, as i n t he 1995 ver s i on, pr i s oner s convi ct ed of drug offe ns es w i th s ent enci ng enhanc ement s forthe pos s es s i on of a fi r earm – butthi s t i m e, “[a ] s an exe r ci s e of the di s cr et i on v e s t e d i n th e Di r e c t o r . ” 2 8 C. F
. R. § 5 5 0
. 5 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( v i ) ( B) ( 1997) ; s ee a l s o D rug A bus e Tre atm entand I nt ens i ve C onfi nementC ent erPr ogr ams: E ar l yR el eas e C ons i der at i on, 6 2 F e d . R e g . 5 3 6 9 0 (O c t. 1 5 , 1 9 9 7 ). T h e 1 9 9 7 interi m reg u lat ion g av e rise to m o re l i t i gat i on, thi s t i m e conc erni ng w hetherthe ca t egor i cal e x c lu sio n o f

c e rta in c las se s o f

p riso n e rs w a s a p e rm iss ib le exer ci s e of the B O P D i r ect or ’ s di s cr et i on. T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tul t i m at el yr es ol ved the i s s ue i n L opez v. D avi s , 531 U
. S. 230 ( 2001) , byuphol di ng the B O P’ s 1997 i nt er i m r egul at i on. T he Lopez courthel d thatthe fe der al s t atut e, 18 U
. S. C
. § 3621( e) ( 2) ( B ) , gr ant s the B O P t he di s cr et i on t o cat egor i cal l yexcl ude cl as s es of pr i s oner s fr om el i gi bi l i tyforear l yr el eas e. L opez, 531 U
. S. at241. T he Supr eme C our tfur therhel d thatexcl udi ng the cl as s of pr i s oner s convi ct ed of a fel onyi nvol vi ng pos s es s i on of a danger ous w eapon i s a perm i s s i bl e exe r ci s e of thatdi s cr et i on: H a v in g d e c id e d th a t th e B u re a u m a yc a teg o ric a lly excl ude pr i s oner s bas ed on thei rpr econvi ct i on conduct , w e furtherhol d thatthe r egul at i on excl udi ng L o p e z [ 2 8 C .F .R . § 5 5 0 .5 8 (a )(1 )(v i)(B ) (1 9 9 7 )] is perm i s s i bl e. T he B ur eau r eas onabl yconcl uded thatan in m a tes ’s p rio r in v o lv e m e n t w ith f ire a rm s, in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e c o m m iss io n o f a f e lo n y , su g g e sts7 hi s r eadi nes s t o r es or tt o l i fe- endange r i ng vi ol ence and therefore app ropri at el ydeterm i nes t he earl yrel ease d e c is io n . I d. at244. T he B O P’ s 1997 i nt er i m r egul at i on beca m e fi nal w i thoutchange i n 2000, aft era not i ce a nd comm entper i od hel d pur s uantt o t he A PA
. See 5 U
. S. C
. § 553; s ee a l s o D rug A bus e Tre atm entand I nt ens i ve C onfi nementC ent er Pr ogr ams: E ar l yR el eas e C ons i der at i on, 65 Fed. R eg. 80745 ( D ec. 22, 2000)
. A s i thad i n i t s 1997 Feder al R egi s t ernot i ce, the B O P expl ai ned thati tr evi s ed the 1995 ver s i on of the re g u latio n to re so lv e th e sp lita m o n g th e C o u rts o f A p p e a ls and t o ens ur e uni form i tyi n appl y i ng i t s r egul at i on. See D rug A bus e Tre atm entand I nt ens i ve C onfi nementC ent er Pr ogr ams: E ar l yR el eas e C ons i der at i on, 65 Fed. R eg. 80745 ( De c . 2 2 , 2 0 0 0 )
. Am o n g o th e rth i n g s , th e c u rr e n tBO P r egul at i on cont i nues t o pr ovi de that“[a ] s an exe r ci s e of the di s cr et i on ves t ed i n t he D i r ect orof the Feder al B ur eau of P riso n s, th e f

o llo w in g c a teg o rie s o f

in m a tes a re n o t elig ib le for earl yrel ease: . . . [i ]nm at es w ho se curr ent offense is a fel ony. . . [t ] hati nvol ved the ca rry i ng, pos s es s i on, orus e of a f ir e a rm o r o th e r d a n g e ro u s w e a p o n . . . .” 2 8 C .F .R . § 5 5 0 .5 8 (a )( 1 )( v i) (B ) ( 2 0 0 0 ). B. G ar dner , a pr i s onerw hos e off ens e i s a fe l ony i nvol vi ng pos s es s i on of a f i r earm , w as deni ed el i gi bi l i tyfor e a r l yr e l e a s e p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 C. F
. R. § 5 5 0
. 5 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( v i ) ( B) ( 2000)
. H e cha l l enges the r egul at i on as “arbi tr aryand c a p ri c io u s ” u n d e r t h e A P A . S e e 5 U .S .C . § 7 0 6 (2 )( A ). T he s cope of

j udi ci al r evi ew of age ncyrul emaki ng u n d e r th e A P A ’s “ a rb itrar ya n d c a p ric io u s” sta n d a rd is8 “narr ow , and a c our ti s nott o s ubs t i tut e i t s j udgm entforthat o f th e a g en cy . ” M o tor V eh icl e M frs. A ss’n v . S tat e F arm M ut . A ut o I ns . C o. , 463 U
. S. 29, 43 ( 1983)
. A l though a r evi ew i ng court“maynots uppl ya r eas oned bas i s forthe agenc y ’ s act i on thatthe age ncyi t s el f has notgi ven, ” i tm ay neverthel es s “uphol d a dec i s i on of l es s than i deal cl ar i tyi f the agenc y ’ s path m ayr eas onabl ybe di s cerned. ” St at e Farm , 463 U
. S
. at 43
. A co u rtm ayco n clud e tha t a reg u lat ion is arbitrary and capr i ci ous onl y“i f the age ncyr el i ed on fa ct s otherthan thos e i nt ended byC ongr es s , di d notcons i der‘ an i m por t ant as pect ’ of the i s s ue conf r ont i ng the age ncy , pr ovi ded an expl anat i on fori t s deci s i on w hi ch ‘ runs count ert o the e v id e n c e b e f

o re th e a g e n c y ,’ o r is e n tirelyim p lau sib le.” R ite A id o f P a., Inc
. , v . H o u ston , 1 7 1 F
. 3 d 8 4 2 , 8 5 3 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ). In su p p o rt o f

h is c laim th a t th e B O P re g u latio n is arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous , G ar dnerr el i es excl us i vel yupon the re c e n t d e c isio n b yth e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e N in th C irc u it i n A r r i ngt on v. D ani el s , 516 F. 3d 1106 ( 9th C i r . 2008)
. T he A r r i ngt on courtcons i der ed w hetherthe B O P pr ovi ded a su ff ici en t r ati o n ale to su p p o rtthe f inal reg u lat ion ’s c a teg o ric a l ex c lu sio n o f f e lo n s-in -p o ss e ss io n f

ro m th e e a rly r el eas e pr ogr am. T he B O P ar gued thati t s r egul at i on w as not arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous beca us e i tpr om ul gat ed the rul e for the dual purpos es of pr ot ect i ng the publ i c s afe tyand cr eat i ng uni form i tyi n appl i cat i on of the r egul at i on, part i cul ar l yaft er the s pl i tamong t he C our t s of A ppeal s ar os e conc erni ng the 1 9 9 5 v e rs io n o f

th e re g u la tio n . T h e A rri n g ton co u rtrejected b o th o f th e B O P ’s pr offe r ed r at i onal es . I tdi s m i s s ed the publ i c s afe tyar gum ent as a mer e “pos thoc r at i onal i zat i on, ” conc l udi ng thatany m ent i on of publ i c s afe tyw as “ent i r el yabs ent ” fr om the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d. I d. at1113; s ee a l s o B ur l i ngt on T ruck L i nes , I nc. v. U ni t ed St at es , 371 U
. S. 156, 168 ( 1974) ( “ThePerhaps i n r es pons e t o A rr i ngt on, the B O P r ece nt l yi s s ued 2 ano th e rf i n a l r e g u l a t i o n . 2 8 C. F. R. § 5 5 0
. 5 5 ( e f f e c t i v e M ar ch 16, 2009)
. T he new r egul at i on cont i nues t o cat egor i cal l ydeny ear l yr el eas e t o pri so ner s convi ct ed of a fel onyi nvol vi ng pos s es s i on of a da n ger ous w eapon. D rug A bus e tr eatm ent Pr ogr am: Subpar t R evi s i on and C l ar i fi cat i on and El i gi bi l i tyof D
. C
. C ode Fel onyO ffe nder s forE ar l yR el eas e C ons i der at i on, 7 4 F ed
. R eg . 1 8 9 2 (Jan
. 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 ); 2 8 C
. F
. R
. § 5 5 0
. 5 5 (b)(5 )(i i)
. In th e F e d e ra l R e g iste r n o tice , the B O P m a d e e x p licit its p u b lic s afe tyr at i onal e, s t at i ng “ther e i s a s i gni fi can t p ot ent i al for v i o l e n c e f

r o m c r i mi n a l s wh o c a rry , p o s s e s s o r us e f i r e a r ms w hi l e enga ged i n fel o n iou s act i vi ty . T hus , i n the i nt er es tof p u b lic s a f

e ty , the se in m a tes sh o u ld n o t b e re lea se d m o n th s in advanc e of c om pl et i ng thei rs ent ence s . ” 74 Fed. R eg. 1895. T he B O P al s o adopt ed the r eas oni ng s etfor th i n L opez. I d. 9 court s m aynotacc eptappel l at e couns el ’ s pos thoc ra tio n a liza tio n f

o r a g e n c ya c tio n ” ). In c o n tra st, a lth o u g h it found thatthe uni form i tyr at i onal e appe ar ed i n the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d, the A rr i ngt on courtconcl uded thatthe r at i onal e di d nots uffi ci ent l yj us t i fythe B O P’ s act i on. T he B O P coul d have c hos en t o achi eve uni form i tythr ough m ethods otherthan a rul e of e xcl us i on, and the r ecor d di d not e x p la in w h yth e a g e n c yc h o s e th a t p a rt ic u la r a p p ro a c h
. A r r i ngt on, 516 F. 3d at1114. T hus , the C our tof A ppeal s for the N i nth C i r cui tconcl uded thatbeca us e “the admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d cont ai ns no r at i onal e expl ai ni ng the B ur eau’ s deci s i on t o cat egor i cal l yexcl ude pr i s oner s w i th convi ct i ons i nvol vi ng f ir e a rm s f ro m e lig ib ility f

o r e a rl yre le a s e u n d e r § 3 6 2 1 (e ). . . .,” th e re g u la tio n is in v a lid
. S e e A rr in g to n , 5 1 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 1 2
. 2 T o dat e, A r r i ngt on i s the s ol e ca s e t o concl ude thatthe B O P’ s r egul at i on i s arbi tr aryand capr i ci ous i n vi ol at i on of the A PA
. I n r es pons e t o G ar dner ’ s cl ai m , the G overnm ent ar gues thatw e s houl d r ej ectA rr i ngt on and i ns t ead f ol l ow theT he G at ew ood courtal s o fou n d that the B O P had s tr ong 3 s ubs t ant i ve and a dm i ni s tr at i ve i nt er es t s i n appl y i ng i t s pol i cy deci s i ons uni form l ythr oughouti t s i ns t i tut i ons , pr ovi di ng an a d d itio n a l ju s tif

ic a tio n f o r t h e re g u la tio n . Id . a t 8 4 8 -4 9
. 10 re a so n in g o f

th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e E ig h th C irc u it i n its rec en t dec isi o n G atew o o d v . O u tl aw , 5 6 0 F
. 3 d 8 4 3 (8th C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e G a tew o o d c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t A rrin g to n is
“ c o n tra ryto th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in L o p e z ” a n d h e ld thatthe B O P pr ovi ded s uffi ci entj us t i fi cat i on fori t s r egul at i on u n d e r t h e A P A . G a te w o o d , 5 6 0 F .3 d a t 8 4 6
. A cc o rdin g to G atew o o d , the A rri n g ton co u rt unj us t i fi abl yand err oneous l yl i m i t ed i t s cons i der at i on of w hat i tcal l ed the “a dm i ni s tr at i ve r ecor d” t o the B O P’ s Feder al R egi s t ernot i ce i s s ued i n 2000 w hen the B O P pr om ul gat ed the f in a l ru le. Id . at 8 4 7 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e E ig h th C i r cui tconcl uded that , i n the admi ni s tr at i ve rul emaki ng c o n te x t, th e “ a d m in is tr a tiv e re c o rd ” is s im p ly n o t s o lim ite d
. R a th e r, in c o n sid e rin g th e B O P ’s c o n sis ten t ef f o rts to i m pl ementi t s cat egor i cal excl us i on of fe l ons - i n- pos s es s i on fr om the ea r l yr el eas e pr ogr am i n the fa ce of j udi ci al r es i s t ance , “i ti s appr opr i at e t o di s cern the r eas ons forthe agen cy ’s fi nal rule fr om the v ari ou s pri or i nter i m rul es, Pr ogr am S t at ement s , and l i t i gat i on pos i t i ons r efl ect i ng that cons i s t entpol i cy . ” I d. T aken t ogether , thes e s our ces d e m o n s tr a t e th a tth e B O P w a s c o n s i s t e n t l y m o t i v a t e d b y a p u b li c sa fe tyrati o n ale, an d that rati o n ale sa ti sfies th e A P A ’s re q u ir e m e n ts . Id . a t 8 4 7
. 3 C. H avi ng cl os el ycons i der ed the i s s ue, w e conc l ude that th e B O P a rt ic u la te d a s u f f ic ie n t r a tio n a le f

o r 2 8 C .F .R . § 550. 58( a) ( 1) ( vi ) ( B ) ( 2000) t o s at i s fythe “a rbi tr aryand11 capr i ci ous ” s t andar d s etfor th i n A PA § 706( 2) ( A )
. A l though the B O P’ s publ i c s afe tyr at i onal e w as notexpl i ci ti n the F e d e r a l Re g i s t e rn o t i c e s f o rth e 1 9 9 7 o r2 0 0 0 r e g u l a t i o n s , we concl ude thatthe r at i onal e may“r eas onabl ybe di s cerned” f ro m th e re g u lato ryh isto rya n d a tten d a n t li tig a tio n . S e e S tate Far m , 463 U
. S. at43; G at ew ood, 560 F. 3d at847. A s p re v io u slyd isc u ss e d , the B O P ’s e f f o rts to cat egor i cal l yexcl ude fe l ons convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of a danger ous w eapon f

r om el i gi bi l i tyforear l yr el eas e have r emai ned cons i s t ents i nce 1995. T he B O P am ended the 1995 ver s i on of i t s r egul at i on onl ybeca us e i tcoul d no l onger u n if o rm lya p p lyit af

ter th e sp lita m o n g th e C o u rts o f A p p e a ls devel oped conc erni ng the B O P’ s Pr ogr am S t at ement ; the B O P expr es s l yr efe r r ed t o the C i r cui ts pl i ti n both i t s 1997 and 2000 Feder al R egi s t ernot i ces . See 62 Fed. R eg. 53690; 65 Fed. R eg. 80745, 80747. B eca us e the l i t i gat i on focus ed on th e B O P ’s P ro g ra m S tate m e n ts, w e f in d it b o th re a so n a b le and appr opr i at e t o cons i derthe Pr ogr am S t at ement s w hen di s cerni ng the age ncy ’ s r at i onal e forpr om ul gat i ng the 1997 and 2000 r egul at i ons . See G at ew ood, 560 F. 3d at847. T he B O P Progr am S t at ement s expr es s l ypr ovi de that the B O P’ s cont empora neous r at i onal e forthe ca t egor i cal excl us i on has cons i s t ent l ybeen f orthe purpos e of pr ot ect i ng publ i c s afe ty . See U
. S. D ep’ tof J us t i ce, Fed. B ur eau of Pr i s ons , Pr ogr am S t at ement5162. 04: C at egor i zat i on of O ffe ns es , § 7( b) ( O ct . 9, 1997) ; Pr ogr am S t at ement5162. 02, § 9. C our t s r evi ew i ng the r egul at i on have l ong r ecogni zed the B O P’ s publ i c s afe tyr at i onal e. See, e. g. , Pel i s s er o, 170 F. 3d a t 4 4 5 (q u o tin g th e d istric t co u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t itis
“ e n tirelyre a so n a b le a n d c e rta in lyn o t ar b itrar yf o r th e B O P to equat e gun pos s es s i on and drug deal i ng w i th vi ol ence , thus s uppor t i ng i t s i nt erpr et at i on of notbei ng a ‘ nonvi ol ent o ff en se’” ); V en eg as v . H erm an , 1 2 6 F
. 3 d 7 6 0 , 7 6 5 (5th C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ) (th e B O P ’s “ d e ter m in a tio n th a t a s u f f icie n t n e x u s e x ists12 betw een the off

ens es ati s s ue and a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of v io len c e is a v a lid e x e rc ise o f d isc re tio n w h ich th is C o u rt w ill n o t d is tu rb ” ). I ndeed, w e fi nd i textr emel ys i gni fi cantthati n L opez, the Supr eme C our tuphel d both the r eas onabl enes s of the 1997 i nt er i m r egul at i on and the B O P’ s publ i c s afe tyr at i onal e. L opez, 531 U
. S. at244 ( T he B O P “r eas onabl yconcl uded that an i nm at e’ s pr i ori nvol vementw i th fi r earm s , i n connec t i on w ith th e c o m m iss io n o f a f e lo n y , su g g e sts h is re a d in e ss to r es or tt o l i fe- endange r i ng vi ol ence . ”) ; G at ew ood, 560 F. 3d at 8 4 8 (“[ W ]e h av e n o d ifficu ltyco n clud ing , as th e C o u rt obvi ous l ydi d i n L opez, thatpubl i c s afe tyw as the c o n te m p o ra n e o u s ra tio n a le f o r t h e in te ri m a n d f

in a l ru le s . . .

. ”)
. T he A r r i ngt on courtdi s count ed thi s as pectof Lopez, ho l ding t hat Lo pez ad dress ed o nlythe B O P ’s authori tyt o p ass th e ru le, n o t w h e th e r th e B O P c o m p lied w ith th e A P A w h e n it pr om ul gat ed the rul e. A rr i ngt on, 516 F. 3d at1115; cf. G at ew ood, 560 F. 3d at848 ( not i ng thatther e “i s s i m pl yno reas on t o suspec tthat publi c safet yw as not the actual basi s” f o r th e re g u latio n g iv e n th e B O P ’s “ p rim a ryp u b lic s a f e ty m i s s i on”)
. W e, how ever , cannots o r eadi l yconcl ude thatthe S u p rem e C o u rtfa il ed to co n side r w h ethe r th e B O P ’s p ro f f e re d p u b lic s a f

e tyra tio n a le w a s le g iti m a te, a n d n o t a m e re p o st h o c ra tio n a liza tio n , w h e n e v a lu a tin g th e ra tio n a le to d e t e r m i n e th e r e g u l a t i o n ’ s v a l i d i ty. F in a lly , the lan g u a g e o f th e re g u latio n itse lf

f a c ially m an ifests a c o n ce rn f

o r pro tecti n g the p u b li c sa fe ty . In addi t i on t o fel ons - i n- pos s es s i on, i tal s o deni es el i gi bi l i tyfor ear l yr el eas e t o var i ous cat egor i es of pr i s oner s w hos e off ens es m an ifest a p o tential fo r vio lent b eh av ior, su ch as p ri so n ers w i th a p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n f o rh o m i c i d e , f

o r c i b l e r a p e , r o b b e ry, agg ravat ed assault , or chi l d sexu al abu se; pri soners w ho se c u rre n t o f

f e n se is a f

e lo n yth a t h a s a n e lem e n t o f a c tu a l, att empt ed, orthr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns ta per s on13 o r p ro p e rty ; an d p riso n e rs w h o se c u rre n t o f f e n se “ b yits natur e orconduct ” pr es ent s a s er i ous pot ent i al r i s k of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns ta per s on orpr operty , ori nvol ves chi l d s exual ab u se o ff

en ses. 28 C
. F
. R
. § 5 5 0
. 5 8 (a)(1)(iv), (vi)(A ), (C ), ( D ) ( 2000) ; s ee a l s o G at ew ood, 560 F. 3d at848. I n s um , w her e, as her e, the “a gencyhas art i cul at ed and act ed on a c ons i s t entr at i onal e thr oughoutthe cour s e of a l engthyi nform al rul emaki ng pr oces s , the fi nal rul e i s not a rb itrar ya n d c a p ric io u s b e c a u se th e ra tio n a le w a s n o t f u lly r ei t er at ed i n t he fi nal agenc yact i on. ” G at ew ood, 560 F. 3d at 84 8; cf. , A rr i ng t on , 51 6 F
. 3d at11 14
. F or al l of these r eas ons , w e hol d that28 C
. F. R
. § 550. 58 ( a) ( 1) ( vi ) ( B ) ( 2000) i s notarbi tr aryand capr i ci ous w i thi n the meani ng of § 706 of the A PA
. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydeni ed G ardner’ s pet i t i on for a w ri tof h abeas co rpus. D. G ar dneral s o ar gues forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al thatthe B O P e rro n e o u slya p p lied th e re g u latio n to h im b e c a u se h is “off ens e of c onvi ct i on does notfal l w i thi n the expr es s ed t erm s and def

i ni t i on forw hi ch the r egul at i on w as des i gned, and the r egul at i on i n thi s i ns t ance has , otherw i s e, been a p p lied in c o rre c tly .” G a rd n e r d id n o t ra ise th is c laim in h is habea s corpus pet i t i on and the D i s tr i ctC our tther efor e di d not have the opportuni tyt o cons i deri ti n the fi r s ti ns t ance . See D istric t C o u rt O p . at 3 , n .3 (“ P e tit io n e r d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t h is offe ns e does notfal l w i thi n the t erm s of the r egul at i on orthat th e re g u latio n o th e rw ise h a s b e e n a p p lied to h im i ncorr ect l y . ”)
. W e gene r al l ydo notcons i derar gum ent s r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al , s ee I nduct otherm I ndus
. , I nc. v. U
. S
. , 35 1 F
. 3d 12 0, 12 6 n
. 9 (3d C i r. 20 03 ), and w i l l no tdo so i n t hi s cas e. III
.14 Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm ent o f th e D istric t C o u rt.