Opinion ID: 159105
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Regulation vs. Program Statement:

Text: 36 We held in Fristoe that the rationale of the Program Statement and the regulation expressed the BOP's view that a drug offense with a sentencing enhancement for firearms possession was not a nonviolent offense under 3621(e)(2)(B). Fristoe, 144 F.3d at 630. Despite that reference to the rationale of both the regulation and the Program Statement, the focus of our analysis was on the Program Statement, which, unlike the regulation, explicitly held that prisoners with drug convictions with firearms sentencing enhancements were ineligible to participate in the early release program. Indeed, we applied the non-deferential review standard applicable to informal agency interpretations like program statements, holding that [t]he BOP's program statement definition of a 'nonviolent offense' is not well-reasoned, and fails to persuade us it is entitled to deference. Id. at 631. We therefore assume, for purposes of this appeal, that Fristoe only clearly invalidated a program statement, not a regulation. We likewise assume, for purposes of this appeal, that we review in this case both the regulation and the new Program Statement. 6 Accordingly, we apply the deferential review standard to the regulation and the non-deferential review standard to the Program Statement. See Fristoe, 144 F.3d at 631. 37