DocketNumber: 05-1690
Citation Numbers: 134 F. App'x 574
Judges: Nygaard, Van Antwerpen Greenberg
Filed Date: 6/17/2005
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 6-17-2005 Wyman v. Nash Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1690 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Wyman v. Nash" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 994. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/994 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. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 05-1690 ________________ DENNIS WYMAN, Appellant v. WARDEN JOHN NASH, Warden B.O.P. _______________________________________ On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00758) District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson _______________________________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 16, 2005 Before: NYGAARD, VAN ANTWERPEN AND GREENBERG, CIRCUIT JUDGES (Filed June 17, 2005) _______________________ OPINION _______________________ PER CURIAM Dennis Wyman appeals from the District Court’s order denying his habeas corpus petition filed under28 U.S.C. § 2241
. Wyman challenges the calculation of his good conduct time (“GCT”) by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). Because we conclude that the District Court’s order is correct in light of our recent opinion in O’Donald v. Johns,402 F.3d 172
(3d Cir. 2005), we will affirm. Wyman is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey, serving a sentence of 120 months for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute. Wyman was sentenced on March 8, 2000. The BOP calculated a release date of June 26, 2008, pursuant to its reading of18 U.S.C. § 3624
(b), for which the BOP applies a formula affixing GCT based on time actually served. Wyman filed a petition pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 2241
in February 2005, claiming specifically that the BOP misinterprets § 3624(b), depriving him of 70 days of GCT. He claims that he is entitled by statute to receive 54 days of GCT for each year of his imposed sentence, rather than the BOP’s interpretation that he receives credit only for time actually served. By order entered February 24, 2005, the District Court held that the BOP’s interpretation is correct and denied the petition. He then filed this appeal.1 We recently decided this precise issue. In O’Donald, we held that although § 3624(b) is ambiguous, the BOP’s interpretation is reasonable. Id. at 174. We stated in 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
and 2253(a). We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to its findings of fact. See Ruggiano v. Reish,307 F.3d 121
, 126 (3d Cir. 2002). Further, it is unclear whether Wyman exhausted his administrative remedies, see Callwood v. Enos,230 F.3d 627
, 634 (3d Cir. 2000) (citations omitted), but considering that exhaustion is an affirmative defense and the petition is unopposed, we address the underlying claim on its merits. See Ray v. Kertes,285 F.3d 287
, 295 (3d Cir. 2002). 2 O’Donald, that under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council,467 U.S. 837
, 844 (1984), we defer to the BOP’s reasonable interpretation. O’Donald,402 F.3d at 174
. Thus, Wyman’s claim must fail. In short, in light of our recent opinion in O’Donald v. Johns, the District Court properly denied Wyman’s challenge to the BOP’s calculation of his GCT. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order denying his habeas corpus petition. 3
Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, ... , 104 S. Ct. 2778 ( 1984 )
Anthony Ruggiano, Jr. v. R.M. Reish, Warden , 307 F.3d 121 ( 2002 )
David O'DOnalD v. Tracy Johns, Warden , 402 F.3d 172 ( 2005 )
James Callwood v. Jerry Enos , Director, Bureau of ... , 230 F.3d 627 ( 2000 )
Frederick T. Ray v. C.O. Kertes C.O. Stolz C.O. Reed C.O. ... , 285 F.3d 287 ( 2002 )