Case Name: Leslie Ibsen ROGGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert MILES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-10
Citations: 134 F. App'x 692
Docket Number: No. 04-40422
Parties: Leslie Ibsen ROGGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert MILES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 692–693

Head Matter:
Leslie Ibsen ROGGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert MILES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-40422.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 10, 2005.
Leslie Ibsen Rogge, Beaumont, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Andrea Lynn Parker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leslie Ibsen Rogge, federal prisoner # 13915-004, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Ibsen challenged the determination by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that he had escaped from incarceration, rather than being inadvertently released, and therefore that he was not entitled to credit for the 3884 days he was out of custody. Rogge has not established that the district court erred in determining that the BOP properly found that Rogge had escaped and was not entitled to the credit. See Royal v. Tombone, 141 F.3d 596, 599 (5th Cir.1998); Phillips v. Dutton, 378 F.2d 898, 898 (5th Cir.1967).
Rogge also contends that the BOP denied him due process by failing to give him notice and provide him with a hearing before deciding not to award him the credit for the time he spent out of custody. Because Rogge failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on this ground, he is not entitled to relief. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335-36, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992). Even if Rogge had exhausted the claim, he has not demonstrated a due process violation. Cf. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557, 561, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957-58 (5th Cir.2000). The judgment of the district court is thus AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.