Case Name: Danny Ryan SASS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeff E. THOMAS, Warden Federal Prison Camp Sheridan, Oregon, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-08
Citations: 405 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 09-35830
Parties: Danny Ryan SASS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jeff E. THOMAS, Warden Federal Prison Camp Sheridan, Oregon, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, PAEZ, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 405
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
Danny Ryan SASS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jeff E. THOMAS, Warden Federal Prison Camp Sheridan, Oregon, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-35830.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 4, 2010.
Filed Dec. 8, 2010.
Stephen R. Sady, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: TASHIMA, PAEZ, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Danny Ryan Sass appeals the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm.
1. Sass contends that the Bureau of Prisons' ("BOP") policies interpreting the Second Chance Act ("SCA") are substantively and procedurally invalid. The SCA, however, had not yet become effective, and the BOP's memoranda and regulations that are at issue on appeal had not yet been implemented when the BOP denied Sass' only request for a transfer to a Residential Re-Entry Center ("RRC") that is documented in the record. Accordingly, Sass' claims challenging the BOP's SCA-based policies are not ripe for review. See Bova v. City of Medford, 564 F.3d 1093, 1096 (9th Cir.2009).
2. Sass also argues that the BOP, in denying his particular request for transfer to an RRC, violated 18 U.S.C. § 3621 by failing to consider the factors enumerated in that statute. We conclude that the record does not support this contention. We further note that, in any event, the BOP will evaluate any future RRC applications by Sass under its SCA-based policies, which we recently approved in the related case of Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059, 1061 (9th Cir.2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.