Calhoun v. FCI Warden Texarkana , 224 F. App'x 333 ( 2007 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 22, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40598
Summary Calendar
MAURICE RIEMER CALHOUN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
FCI WARDEN, TEXARKANA, TX,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:05-CV-198
- - - - - - - - - -
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Maurice Riemer Calhoun, federal prisoner # 11726-035,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 habeas petition. Calhoun is serving concurrent 60-month
prison sentences for 2003 convictions of wire fraud and
conspiracy to commit equity skimming. He contends that the
district court erred in concluding that Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
officials did not abuse their discretion in denying him admission
to the BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP), the
completion of which would have allegedly entitled Calhoun to a
sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-40598
-2-
Section 3621(e) provides that federal prisoners convicted of
nonviolent offenses who complete an RDAP may apply for sentence
reductions of up to one year at the discretion of the BOP
director. See Warren v. Miles, 230 F.3d 688, 691 (5th Cir.
2000). Calhoun was not permitted to participate in the RDAP
because officials determined, under BOP Policy Statement (PS)
5330.10, that he had no “verifiable documented drug abuse
problem.” Calhoun does not dispute that his Presentence Report
and intake screening interview and other information in his
central file--information which PS 5331.10 directs BOP officials
to consider in determining whether an inmate should be admitted
to the RDAP--offered no evidence that he had a substance-abuse
problem. Officials also concluded that letters and other
evidence offered by Calhoun were not “sufficient supporting
documentation of a substance abuse diagnosis,” a conclusion that
is supported by the record. Calhoun has not established that the
denial of his request for admission to the RDAP was arbitrary,
capricious, or an abuse of the BOP’s broad discretion. See
Jupiter Energy Corp. v. F.E.R.C., 407 F.3d 346, 349 (5th Cir.
2005); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Calhoun’s assertion of
personal discrimination is not sufficient to state an equal
protection claim because he has not shown that there was no
rational basis for treating him differently from others similarly
situated. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564
(2000).
No. 06-40598
-3-
Calhoun’s failure to brief a second claim raised in his
§ 2241 petition--that the BOP was incorrectly computing his good
time credit--amounts to an abandonment of that claim. See
Summers v. Dretke, 431 F.3d 861, 882 n.12 (5th Cir. 2005), cert.
denied, 127 S. Ct. 353 (2006); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.