Bounds v. Reese , 145 F. App'x 863 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 5, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40902
Summary Calendar
JOE ALLAN BOUNDS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CONSTANCE REESE, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:03-CV-586-TH-WCR
--------------------
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joe Allan Bounds, federal inmate # 18363-077, is serving a
324-month sentence for convictions of conspiracy to manufacture
phenylacetone and methamphetamine, manufacture of phenylacetone
and methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon. Bounds filed an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
challenging the manner in which the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
calculates the amount of good-time credits received during the
term of incarceration. The district court dismissed the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-40902
-2-
application. Subsequently, Bounds filed a motion pursuant to
FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6), arguing that he should be relieved from
the judgment denying his application due to extraordinary
circumstances. The district court denied the motion, and Bounds
filed an appeal with this court.
Bounds brief on appeal fails to address the district court’s
denial of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion, instead focusing entirely on
the merits of his underlying 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claim. We lack
jurisdiction to review the denial Bounds’ underlying action
because he failed to file a timely notice of appeal from that
judgment.1 Dison v. Whitley, 20 F.3d 185, 186 (5th Cir. 1994).
Our jurisdiction is limited to the question of whether the
district court abused its discretion in denying Bounds’ Rule
60(b) motion. Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402
(5th Cir. 1981). Because Bounds fails to demonstrate that the
district court abused its discretion in denying the motion, the
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Bounds also filed a motion to supplement the record with the
BOP’s program statement. Because Bounds has failed to show that
the district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule
1
We note, however, that we rejected a similar challenge to
the BOP’s method of calculating good time credit in the recent
decision, Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312-13 (5th Cir.
2005). We determined that the plain language of 18 U.S.C. §
3624(b) supports the BOP’s method of calculating good time
credit. Id. at 313. Alternatively, we concluded the statute is
ambiguous and that the BOP’s interpretation is entitled to
deference pursuant to Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Id.
No. 04-40902
-3-
60(b) motion, it is unnecessary to supplement the record with the
requested document. The motion is DENIED.