Kenneth R. James v. T. C. Outlaw, Warden

Eighth Circuit

Kenneth R. James v. T. C. Outlaw, Warden

126 F. App'x 758

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 2005

Docket04-2686

StatusUnpublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 126 F. App'x 758 (Kenneth R. James v. T. C. Outlaw, Warden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kenneth R. James v. T. C. Outlaw, Warden, 126 F. App'x 758 (8th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth R. James was convicted of forcibly breaking into a post office, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2115, and of theft of postal money orders and possession of stolen postal money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 500. He was sentenced to 84 months imprisonment. James filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated his due process rights by miscalculating his good time credits. The district court 1 denied the petition, and James appeals.

James argues that BOP’s method of calculating good time credits based on time actually served rather than the sentence imposed conflicts with the plain meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3624, is contrary to congressional intent, and leads to an extra seven days of imprisonment per year. The government contends that the plain meaning of § 3624(b) calls for awarding good time credits based on time served and that even if the statute is ambiguous, BOP’s interpretation set out at 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 is entitled to deference and is reasonable.

We conclude that § 3624(b) is ambiguous because it does not clearly indicate whether a prisoner’s good time credits are based on the time served in prison or the sentence imposed. See White v. Scibana, 390 F.3d 997 (7th Cir.2004); Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). Since the BOP regulation was adopted through the notice and comment procedure, it is entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), and we conclude that it is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. 2

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2

. Appellant’s motion to strike the government’s 28(j) letter is denied as moot.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth R. James was convicted of forcibly breaking into a post office, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2115, and of theft of postal money orders and possession of stolen postal money orders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 500. He was sentenced to 84 months imprisonment. James filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated his due process rights by miscalculating his good time credits. The district court 1 denied the petition, and James appeals.

James argues that BOP’s method of calculating good time credits based on time actually served rather than the sentence imposed conflicts with the plain meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3624, is contrary to congressional intent, and leads to an extra seven days of imprisonment per year. The government contends that the plain meaning of § 3624(b) calls for awarding good time credits based on time served and that even if the statute is ambiguous, BOP’s interpretation set out at 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 is entitled to deference and is reasonable.

We conclude that § 3624(b) is ambiguous because it does not clearly indicate whether a prisoner’s good time credits are based on the time served in prison or the sentence imposed. See White v. Scibana, 390 F.3d 997 (7th Cir.2004); Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). Since the BOP regulation was adopted through the notice and comment procedure, it is entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), and we conclude that it is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court. 2

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2

. Appellant’s motion to strike the government’s 28(j) letter is denied as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 F. App'x 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-r-james-v-t-c-outlaw-warden-ca8-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack