McDaniel v. Wendt

Fifth Circuit

McDaniel v. Wendt

87 F. App'x 390

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 17, 2004

Docket03-10677

StatusUnpublished

This text of 87 F. App'x 390 (McDaniel v. Wendt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McDaniel v. Wendt, 87 F. App'x 390 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM. *

Jeffery McDaniel, federal prisoner # 08769-078, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) denied him a one-year sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), after initially informing him that he was eligible for such a reduction.

McDaniel renews his argument that the denial of the one-year credit violated his due process rights and that promissory estoppel should prevent the BOP from reneging on its statement of eligibility. His claims fail because there is no protected liberty interest in early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). See Rublee v. Fleming, 160 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir.1998); Venegas v. Henman, 126 F.3d 760, 765 (5th Cir.1997) (“[t]he loss of the mere opportunity to be considered for discretionary early release is too speculative to constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest”). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying McDaniel’s petition, and its judgment is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM. *

Jeffery McDaniel, federal prisoner # 08769-078, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) denied him a one-year sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), after initially informing him that he was eligible for such a reduction.

McDaniel renews his argument that the denial of the one-year credit violated his due process rights and that promissory estoppel should prevent the BOP from reneging on its statement of eligibility. His claims fail because there is no protected liberty interest in early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). See Rublee v. Fleming, 160 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir.1998); Venegas v. Henman, 126 F.3d 760, 765 (5th Cir.1997) (“[t]he loss of the mere opportunity to be considered for discretionary early release is too speculative to constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest”). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying McDaniel’s petition, and its judgment is 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 F. App'x 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdaniel-v-wendt-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack