The opinion of the court was delivered by: GERARD E. LYNCH, District Judge
In these three identical petitions for habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, petitioners challenge the Bureau of Prison's
regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 523.20, interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b),
which provides for good-conduct reductions in the time to be
served by federal prisoners sentenced to imprisonment.
Essentially, the Bureau credits the prisoner on the basis of the
time actually served, rather than on the basis of the nominal
sentence imposed. Relying on White v. Scibana,
314 F. Supp. 2d 834 (W.D. Wisc. 2004), petitioners argue that the Bureau's
interpretation is contrary to the statute.
Petitioner's analysis has been presented to numerous federal
courts, and has been rejected in all cases except White,
including in every appellate court, see Pacheco-Camacho v.
Hood, 272 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001); Brown v. Hemingway, No.
02-1948, 53 Fed. Appx. 338, 2002 WL 31845147 (6th Cir. Dec. 16,
2002); every court within this circuit, see, e.g., Pascuiti
v. Drew, No. 04 Civ. 043 (LEK), 2004 WL 1247813 (N.D.N.Y. June
2, 2004); Barretto v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 04 Civ. 5346 (CLB)
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2004); Loeffler v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 04
Civ. 4627 (GWG), 2004 WL 2417805 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2004); and
every court outside this circuit that has considered the matter
since White was decided, see, e.g., Brown v. Rios, No.
04-D-1560 (PAC) (D. Colo. Sept. 29, 2004); Muratella v. Veltri,
No. 04-456-WDS (S.D. Ill. Sept. 2, 2004); Graves v. Bledsoe,
No. 7:04-CV-00476, 2004 WL 1941231 (W.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2004).
No purpose would be served by rehashing the arguments set forth
in the many opinions cited above, particularly insofar as this
issue is already pending in several circuits, including both our own, in which Pascuiti has been briefed and argued, and the
Seventh, which is considering the Government's appeal in White.
Suffice it to say that the Court agrees with the well-reasoned
analysis of Magistrate Judge Gorenstein in Loeffler.
Accordingly, because the Bureau's interpretation of the statute
is a reasonable one, that interpretation is entitled to deference
and the petitions for habeas corpus in these cases must be
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...