United States District Court, S.D. New York
February 7, 2005.
JEROME YEISER, Petitioner,
BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge
Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona and sentenced principally to a term
of imprisonment of thirty-seven months. He is serving his
sentence at FCI Otisville, and has a projected release date of
October 3, 2006, assuming that he receives the maximum credit for
good conduct that is available to him. He filed this petition,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in an effort to obtain a
determination that the Bureau of Prison's computation of his
projected release date reflects a misinterpretation of the
controlling statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). The nub of the dispute
is whether the good time computation should award 54 days of
credit per year of the inmate's sentence or, as the Bureau of
Prisons has determined, 54 days of credit for each year actually
A large and increasing number of courts have been faced with
the identical issue. All save one have upheld the Bureau's
position. The one case to the contrary, White v. Scibana,
314 F. Supp.2d 834 (W.D. Wis. 2004), recently was reversed by the
Seventh Circuit. White v. Scibana, 390 F.3d 997 (7th Cir.
2004). The three other circuits to have considered the issue also
have rejected petitioner's argument, as have Judges Brieant and
Lynch of this Court. Perez-Olivia v. Chavez, 394 F.3d 45, 49
(1st Cir. 2005); Brown v. Hemingway, No. 02-1948,
53 Fed. Appx. 338, 2002 WL 31845147 (6th Cir. Dec. 16, 2002); Pacheco-Camacho
v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001); Barretto v.
Bureau of Prisons, No. 04 Civ. 5346(CLB) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8,
2004); Moore v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 04 Civ. 5011 (GEL), 2004
WL 2609589 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2004).
This Court agrees with the analysis in the cited cases. There
is no basis for upsetting the Bureau's determination of
petitioner's projected release date or the method by which it
computes good time credit.
Accordingly, the petition is denied. In the absence of a single
viable decision supporting petitioner's position and the uniform
rejected of his arguments by all courts of appeals to have
considered them, a certificate of appealability is denied. The
Court certifies, for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915, that an appeal
herefrom would not be taken in good faith. The Clerk shall close
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.