Robert William Petty v. D.L. Stine, Warden
Robert William PETTY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.L. STINE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Opinion
ORDER Robert William Petty, a federal prisoner residing in Kentucky and proceeding pro se, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . He requests the appointment of an attorney and leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The case has been referred to a *510 panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).
Petty was convicted of a firearm offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1) and sentenced to 327 months in prison. In 2005, he filed a § 2241 petition challenging the manner in which the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) calculates good-time credit. He argued that the credit should be awarded based on the sentence imposed, not the time actually served. Holding that the BOP had correctly interpreted the relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624 (b), the district court denied relief and dismissed the petition with prejudice. On appeal, Petty again raises arguments challenging the BOP’s method of calculating good-time credit.
“The appellate court renders de novo review of a district court judgment dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 .”
Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 755 (6th Cir.1999).
We affirm the district court’s judgment. The BOP’s interpretation of the statute is reasonable.
Brown v. Hemingway, 53 Fed.Appx. 338, 339 (6th Cir.2002) (unpublished);
see also Williams v. Lamanna, 20 Fed.Appx. 360, 361 (6th Cir.2001) (unpublished). For further discussion, see Yi v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 412 F.3d 526 (4th Cir.2005) (unpublished);
O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 173-74 (3d Cir.2005);
Perez-Olivio v. Chavez, 394 F.3d 45 , 47-54 (1st Cir.2005); and White v. Scibana, 390 F.3d 997, 999-1003 (7th Cir.2004), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 2921 , 162 L.Ed.2d 297 (2005) (all upholding the BOP interpretation).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. The motion to proceed informa pauperis is granted for the limited purpose of this appeal, and the motion for an attorney denied as moot. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.