John v. Jeter ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                December 14, 2005
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 05-10296
    Conference Calendar
    LENNIE JOHN,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    COLE JETER, Warden,
    Federal Medical Center Fort Worth,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:05-CV-99-A
    --------------------
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Lennie John, federal prisoner No. 05055-088, is serving a
    180-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to
    distribute cocaine.   John has appealed the district court’s
    dismissal of his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition challenging the method
    used by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to compute the good time
    credit against his sentence authorized by 
    18 U.S.C. § 3624
    (b).
    John contends that the BOP formula reduces his sentence by
    only 47 days of good time credit for each year served, rather
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    No. 05-10296
    -2-
    than the 54 days of credit specified in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3624
    (b).
    John argues that, although he is statutorily entitled to 810 days
    of credit against his sentence for good behavior, he will receive
    only 682 days of sentence credit under the BOP formula.
    Regardless whether John’s sentence is computed on the basis
    of the BOP’s interpretation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3624
    (b) or his own,
    John’s release is not imminent.   In light of the “temporally
    distant and speculative nature of [John’s] claim,” he has failed
    to establish an “immediate injury” that would be redressed by the
    relief that he seeks.    Sample v. Morrison, 
    406 F.3d 310
    , 312 (5th
    Cir. 2005).   Accordingly, we conclude that John’s 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     petition is not ripe for review and dismiss the appeal for
    lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
    APPEAL DISMISSED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-10296

Judges: King, Higginbotham, Smith

Filed Date: 12/14/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024