Dontas v. Holt ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-6-2005
Dontas v. Holt
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1211
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Dontas v. Holt" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1063.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1063
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CPS-175 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1211
________________
ELEFHERIOS DONTAS,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN RONALD R. HOLT
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-02791)
District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy
__________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
March 24, 2004
BEFORE: ALITO, McKEE and AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed : June 6, 2005)
_________________
OPINION
_________________
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Elefherios Dontas, appeals from the District Court’s order denying his
petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his habeas
petition, Dontas challenges the calculation of his good conduct time (“GCT”) by the
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). According to the BOP, Dontas is eligible under the
applicable statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), to earn up to 682 days of GCT with a resulting
projected release date of December 13, 2013. Dontas, however, argues that the BOP’s
calculation of his GCT deprives him of the amount to which he is entitled by statute (i.e.,
784 days of GCT). Dontas asserts that § 3624(b) allows him to earn up to 54 days per
year of the term of sentence imposed, not 54 days per year of time actually served as the
BOP’s calculation provides.
This Court recently issued an opinion concluding that the BOP’s interpretation of
§ 3624(b) is reasonable, and thus entitled to deference. See O’Donald v. Johns, – F.3d –,
2005 WL 647669, *2 (3d Cir. Mar. 22, 2005)(No. 04-2990), citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.
v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984); Stiver v. Meko, 130 F.3d 574,
577 (3dCir. 1997). We concluded that “the BOP’s interpretation comports with the
language of the statute, effectuates the statutory design, establishes a ‘fair prorating
scheme,’ enables inmates to calculate the time they must serve with reasonable certainty,
and prevents certain inmates from earning GCT for time during which they were not
incarcerated.” Id., citing Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (9th Cir.
2001). We further rejected, as meritless, the argument raised by Dontas that the District
Court should have applied the rule of lenity and resolved the statute’s ambiguity in his
favor.
Accordingly, because it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented by
this appeal, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court denying Dontas’
petition pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
2