-
Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-27-2005 Gilmore v. Miner Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 05-1977 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Gilmore v. Miner" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1118. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1118 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. HPS-75 (April 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 05-1977 ____________________________________ CHAD GILMORE, Appellant v. JONATHAN C. MINER, WARDEN, FCI FAIRTON _____________________________________ On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00799) District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson _______________________________________ Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 29, 2005 Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges Filed: May 27, 2005 _______________________ OPINION _______________________ PER CURIAM. Chad Gilmore, a prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, appeals pro se the order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying his habeas petition filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. According to his § 2241 petition, Gilmore pled guilty to receipt of child pornography in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On January 27, 2003, Gilmore was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three years of supervised release. The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has calculated that Gilmore is eligible under
18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) to earn up to 125 days of good conduct time. In February 2005, Gilmore filed the underlying § 2241 petition in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. In his petition, Gilmore alleged that the BOP misinterpreted § 3624(b), depriving him of 19 days of good conduct time. Specifically, Gilmore argued 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. By order entered March 1, 2005, the District Court denied Gilmore’s petition. This timely appeal followed. The outcome of this appeal is controlled by our recent decision in O’Donald v. Johns,
402 F.3d 172(3d Cir. 2005). In O’Donald,
402 F.3d at 174, we held that the meaning of § 3624(b) is ambiguous, and thus deferred to the BOP’s reasonable interpretation of the statute. Gilmore’s claim, identical to that raised and rejected in O’Donald, is unavailing. In short, for the reasons described in O’Donald, the District Court properly rejected Gilmore’s challenge to the BOP’s calculation of his good conduct time. Because this appeal presents “no substantial question,” 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s March 1, 2005, order.
Document Info
Docket Number: 05-1977
Citation Numbers: 132 F. App'x 418
Filed Date: 5/27/2005
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023