Tsang v. Commty Corr Mgr Bur ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-10409
    Conference Calendar
    YUK RUNG TSANG,
    Petitioner-Appellant,
    versus
    U.S. BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL.,
    Respondents,
    THE COMMUNITY CORRECTION MANAGER FOR
    THE BUREAU OF PRISONS,
    Respondent-Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 1:98-CV-114
    --------------------
    December 15, 1999
    Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Federal prisoner Yuk Rung Tsang appeals the district court’s
    dismissal for failure to state a claim of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
    petition alleging that his constitutional rights were violated
    when the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) denied him a one-year sentence
    reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), after he completed a
    500-hour drug-treatment program.   Tsang does not brief any
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-10409
    -2-
    argument in connection with the ex-post-facto claim he raised in
    the district court, and that claim is waived.     See Yohey v.
    Collins, 
    985 F.2d 222
    , 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P.
    28(a).
    Tsang renews his argument that the denial of the one-year
    credit violated his due process rights.    His due-process claim
    fails because there is no protected liberty interest in early
    release under § 3621.   See Rublee v. Fleming, 
    160 F.3d 213
    , 216
    (5th Cir. 1998); Venegas v. Henman, 
    126 F.3d 760
    , 765 (5th Cir.
    1997)(“[t]he loss of the mere opportunity to be considered for
    discretionary early release is too speculative to constitute a
    deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest”),
    cert. denied, 
    118 S. Ct. 1679
    (1998).     Accordingly, the district
    court did not err in dismissing his petition, and its judgment is
    AFFIRMED.   Tsang’s motions for an expedited appeal and for
    discovery are DENIED.
    AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.