Araujo v. FCI Berlin, Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Albert Araujo
v. 	Case No. 23-cv-453-PB-TSM
FCI Berlin Warden
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The petitioner, Albert Araujo, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) violated the First Step Act (“FSA”), by failing to credit his sentence
with any time credits under the FSA. Before the court is the respondent Warden’s motion for summary
judgment (Doc. No. 5), to which the petitioner has not objected. For reasons stated below, the magistrate
judge recommends that the district judge grant that motion for summary judgment, as the petitioner is
ineligible for the application of any FSA time credits because of the nature of his conviction.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate in habeas proceedings when “‘there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’” 	Bader v.
Warden, No. 02-cv-508-JD, 2003 DNH 90, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8955, at *8-9, 2003 WL 21228520,
at *3 (D.N.H. May 28, 2003) (citations omitted), aff’d, 488 F.3d 483 (1st Cir. 2007).
Background
The petitioner is serving a sentence imposed in his criminal case, United States v. Araujo, No.
21-cr-142-PB (D.N.H.). 	The petitioner in that case was indicted and convicted of distributing a
controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi), an offense defined by statute as
involving 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of fentanyl. See
Aug. 30, 2021 Indictment & July 15, 2022 Jt., Araujo, No. 21-cr-142-PB (D.N.H.) (ECF Nos. 11, 28);
see also Doc. Nos. 5-1 to 5-5.
Case 1:23-cv-00453-PB-TSM Document 7 Filed 12/14/23 Page 1 of 2

2
Discussion
The portion of the FSA listing the offenses that disqualify prisoners from earning FSA time
credits, see 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D), provides, in pertinent part, that fentanyl distribution offenses
under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi) are disqualifying. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi); see also 28
C.F.R. § 523.41(d)(2) (“[i]f the inmate is serving a term of imprisonment for an offense specified in 18
U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D), the inmate is not eligible to earn FSA Time Credits”). It is undisputed here that
the petitioner was convicted of a disqualifying fentanyl offense. The respondent is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law on the § 2241 petition here, as the petitioner is disqualified by law from earning any
FSA time credits that could be applied to his sentence. Accordingly, the district judge should grant the
respondent’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 5).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should grant the Warden’s motion for summary
judgment (Doc. No. 5) and direct the clerk’s office to enter judgment and close the case. Any objections
to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	The
objection period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file any objection within the specified time
waives the right to appeal the district court’s Order. See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163,
168 (1st Cir. 2016). 	Only those issues raised in the written objections “‘are subject to review in the
district court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” Id. (citations
omitted).
_______________________________
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
December 14, 2023
cc: 	Albert Araujo, pro se
Anna Dronzek, Esq.
Case 1:23-cv-00453-PB-TSM Document 7 Filed 12/14/23 Page 2 of 2