NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

:

RODNEY GREENE, :

:

Petitioner, :

:

v. :

:

J.T. SHARTLE, :

:

Respondents. :

 :

Civil No. 11-4752 (RMB)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUMB, District Judge:

1. Petitioner, an inmate incarcerated at FCI Fairton, filed

a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

challenging a final decision of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)

dated July 12, 2011. Greene argued that the BOP violated the

terms of the sentence imposed on November 16, 2009, in United

States v. Greene, Crim. No. 07-0120 (JS) (E.D. Pa. filed Mar. 8,

2007), by failing to run Petitioner’s 99-month federal sentence

retroactively concurrent to Petitioner’s Pennsylvania sentence of

11.5 to 23 months imposed on April 9, 2007. See Ruggiano v.

Reish, 307 F.3d 121 (3d Cir. 2002). Specifically, he challenged

the BOP’s failure to deduct the 322-day period he served in the

custody of Pennsylvania after his November 3, 2005, arrest from

the time he had to serve in the custody of the BOP. [Dkt. 1 at

p. 21.] Presently before this Court is Greene’s motion to

reconsider the Order dismissing his Petition as moot.

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 104
2. In response to Green’s Petition and this Court’s Order

to answer, BOP reviewed the sentencing transcript, concluding 

the sentencing court’s intent, consistent

with § 5G1.3, was to adjust the total length

of Petitioner’s sentence to take into account

the time he served on the state offenses.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s sentence

computation was adjusted to reflect a

sentence length of 7 years, 5 months, and 4

days (from the originally imposed 8 years, 3

months). This 302 day (approximately 10

month) adjustment was based on the periods of

time the Petitioner was verified as being in

state custody (and for which he did not get

prior custody credit [of 961 days already

given by the BOP] . . . . After adjusting

the sentence length and computing the prior

custody time [of 961 days] and projected good

conduct time, the Petitioner’s new projected

release date is currently September 17, 2013.

[Dkt. 4-1 at 3] (paragraph numbers omitted).

3. Greene filed two Replies arguing that the BOP had

improperly failed to credit him for an additional 19 days he

served in the custody of Pennsylvania, i.e., November 8, 2005,

through November 11, 2005, January 30, 2006, through January 31,

2006, April 24, 2006, May 8, 2006, and April 10, 2007, through

April 20, 2007. (Dkt. 7.)

4. On December 21, 2011, this Court dismissed the Petition

as moot, even though Greene maintained that he served 321 days,

rather than 302 days, in the custody of Pennsylvania. This Court

ruled that, when the BOP recalculated Greene’s release date to be

September 17, 2013, the BOP gave him all the relief this Court

2

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 105
could have ordered if it had granted a Writ. This Court noted in

a footnote that, in his second Reply [Dkt. 8], for the first time

Greene complained that the BOP had improperly reduced his

potential good conduct time by 39 days; this Court stated that

nothing in Opinion prevented Greene from filing a new

administrative remedy challenging the new projected release date

of September 17, 2013.

5. Greene then filed a motion for reconsideration of the

Order dismissing his Petition. He argues that “the BOP

recalculation of 302 days credit being deducted from Petitioner’s

initial incorrect Projected Release Date of June 07, 2014 would

not arrive at September 17, 2013 as the BOP insists. It would

arrive at August 09, 2013.” (Dkt. 11 at 1.)

6. On January 4, 2012, the BOP filed a letter opposing the

motion for reconsideration.

7. This Court will grant Greene’s motion for

reconsideration and review the BOP’s calculation of Greene’s new

projected release date of September 17, 2013.

8. Greene is correct that the subtraction of 302 days from

his initial projected release date of June 7, 2014, would result

in a new projected release date of August 9, 2013. However,

Greene’s calculation of his new projected release date fails to

consider that by reducing the actual time Greene will serve in

the BOP’s custody by 302 days, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) required the

3

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 106
BOP to reduce by 39 days the maximum projected good conduct time

Green could earn through good behavior.

9. Section 3624(b)(1) provides: “[A] prisoner who is

serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year . . . may

receive credit toward the service of the prisoner’s sentence,

beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year

of the prisoner’s term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of

the first year of the term . . . . [C]redit for the last year or

portion of a year of the term of imprisonment shall be prorated

and credited within the last six weeks of the sentence.” 18

U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1).

10. In Barber v. Thomas, 130 S.Ct. 2499 (2010), the Supreme

Court held that the BOP’s method of calculating good conduct time

credit based on the length of time that the prisoner actually

serves in the custody of the BOP, rather than upon the length of

the term of imprisonment that the sentencing judge imposed, was

lawful. “[T]he BOP’s interpretation [of § 3624(b)] provides a

prisoner entitled to a maximum annual credit with 54 days of good

time credit for each full year of imprisonment that he serves and

a proportionally adjusted amount of credit for any additional

time served that is less than a full year. And, as § 3624(b)

directs, the BOP awards the credit at the end of each year of

imprisonment (except, of course for [the final year], which is

subject to the statute’s special instruction requiring proration

4

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 107
and crediting during the last six weeks of the sentence).” Id.

at 2504 (emphasis in original).

11. In the appendix of Barber, the Supreme Court provided 

the mathematical formula . . . to calculate

the amount of maximum available [good

conduct] credit for an entire sentence . . .

. [I]f we divide the total number of days in

a sentence by 1.148, we get the minimum

number of days that a defendant must serve in

that sentence. If we then subtract the

number of days served from the total number

of days in the sentence, we arrive at the

maximum number of good time credit days the

prisoner can earn.

Barber, 130 S.Ct. at 2511.

12. This Court will now use the above mathematical formula

to compute the original calculation of Greene’s good conduct

time, as well as the re-calculation of his good conduct time

resulting from the reduction of the time Greene must serve in the

BOP’s custody by 302 days. 

13. Originally, the BOP calculated the release date by

taking the sentence of 99 months or 3,011 days, subtracting 961

days of prior custody credit, to arrive at 2,050 days to be

served. Using the mathematical formula set forth above results

in the calculation: 2050 days divided by 1.148 equals 1786 days;

subtracting 1786 days from the original 2050 days results in

total projected good conduct time of 264 days.

14. When the BOP recalculated Green’s sentence, the BOP

took the sentence of 99 months or 3,011 days, subtracted 961 days

5

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 108
of prior custody credit, and then also subtracted 302 days served

in the custody of Pennsylvania, to arrive at 1,748 days remaining

to be served. Dividing 1,748 days by 1.148 equals 1523 days, and

subtracting 1523 days from 1748 days results in 225 days of

projected good conduct time. 

15. Thus, reducing the time Greene served in the BOP’s

custody by 302 days resulted in a reduction of his maximum

projected good conduct time from 264 days to 225 days, which is a

39-day difference. 

16. When one adds this 39 days (good conduct time not

earned on 302 days) to the date of August 9, 2013, which date

Greene calculated as his new projected release date in his motion

for reconsideration, the result is a new projected release date

of September 17, 2013, which is the new projected release date

calculated by the BOP.

17. After reconsideration, this Court again finds that

Greene’s § 2241 Petition became moot when the BOP recalculated

his projected release date as September 17, 2013. After

reconsideration, this Court will again dismiss the Petition as

moot. This Court will enter an appropriate Order.

s/Renée Marie Bumb 

RENÉE MARIE BUMB

United States District Judge

Dated: January 31, 2012

6

Case 1:11-cv-04752-RMB Document 14 Filed 01/31/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 109