Summary
upholding the BOP's procedure for calculating good-time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)
Summary of this case from Michael v. United StatesOpinion
No. 06-35065.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed December 27, 2006.
Donald James Engel, Sheridan, OR, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-01834-AJB.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Donald James Engel appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons' ("BOP") method for calculating good-time credits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Engel contends that the BOP's procedure for calculating good-time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) contradicts the plain language of the statute, is contrary to legislative intent, offends the Rule of Lenity, is not entitled to Chevron deference, and is unconstitutional. These contentions are foreclosed by Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2005), and Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266, 1270-72 (9th Cir. 2001). We reject Engel's contention that Pacheco-Camacho has been overruled by the concurring opinion in Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 177-78, 110 S.Ct. 997, 108 L.Ed.2d 132 (1990). Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed.
Engel's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.