Robinson v. Reese

Fifth Circuit

Robinson v. Reese

224 F. App'x 449

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 17, 2007

Docket06-60896

StatusUnpublished

This text of 224 F. App'x 449 (Robinson v. Reese) 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

Robinson v. Reese, 224 F. App'x 449 (5th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Terrence Paul Robinson, federal prisoner # 18408-018, was convicted of conspiracy to import and importation of cocaine. Robinson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’s (BOP) method of calculating his good time credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). Robinson contends that the BOP has incorrectly interpreted § 3624(b) and that he is entitled to earn 54 days of good time credit each year based on his term of imprisonment.

In Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir.2005), this court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal of a prisoner’s § 2241 petition, wherein the petitioner, like Robinson, argued that the BOP was miscalculating his good time credit under § 3624(b). The court concluded that the petitioner, who was not yet eligible for release from prison, did not establish that he would sustain immediate injury that could be redressed by the relief requested such that the petition was not ripe for review. Id.

Robinson requests the same form of relief as the petitioner in Sample. However, whether Robinson’s sentence is computed on the basis of the BOP’s interpretation of § 3624(b) or his own, he is not entitled to release. Thus, like the petitioner in Sample, Robinson’s petition is not ripe for review, and the instant appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Sample, 406 F.3d at 312. Moreover, even if Robinson’s request for relief were not premature, his argument would be foreclosed under present law by Moreland v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 431 F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1906, 164 L.Ed.2d 583 (2006).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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: *

Terrence Paul Robinson, federal prisoner # 18408-018, was convicted of conspiracy to import and importation of cocaine. Robinson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’s (BOP) method of calculating his good time credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). Robinson contends that the BOP has incorrectly interpreted § 3624(b) and that he is entitled to earn 54 days of good time credit each year based on his term of imprisonment.

In Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir.2005), this court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal of a prisoner’s § 2241 petition, wherein the petitioner, like Robinson, argued that the BOP was miscalculating his good time credit under § 3624(b). The court concluded that the petitioner, who was not yet eligible for release from prison, did not establish that he would sustain immediate injury that could be redressed by the relief requested such that the petition was not ripe for review. Id.

Robinson requests the same form of relief as the petitioner in Sample. However, whether Robinson’s sentence is computed on the basis of the BOP’s interpretation of § 3624(b) or his own, he is not entitled to release. Thus, like the petitioner in Sample, Robinson’s petition is not ripe for review, and the instant appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Sample, 406 F.3d at 312. Moreover, even if Robinson’s request for relief were not premature, his argument would be foreclosed under present law by Moreland v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 431 F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1906, 164 L.Ed.2d 583 (2006).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

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)

224 F. App'x 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-reese-ca5-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack