Robinson v. Reese

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 17, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-60896
Conference Calendar
TERRENCE PAUL ROBINSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
CONSTANCE REESE,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:05-CV-83
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Terrence Paul Robinson, federal prisoner # 18408-018, was
convicted of conspiracy to import and importation of cocaine.
Robinson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’s (BOP) method
of calculating his good time credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b).
Robinson contends that the BOP has incorrectly interpreted
§ 3624(b) and that he is entitled to earn 54 days of good time
credit each year based on his term of imprisonment.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-60896
-2-
In Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2005),
this court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over the appeal of a prisoner’s § 2241 petition, wherein the
petitioner, like Robinson, argued that the BOP was miscalculating
his good time credit under § 3624(b). The court concluded that
the petitioner, who was not yet eligible for release from prison,
did not establish that he would sustain immediate injury that
could be redressed by the relief requested such that the petition
was not ripe for review. Id.
Robinson requests the same form of relief as the petitioner
in Sample. However, whether Robinson’s sentence is computed on
the basis of the BOP’s interpretation of § 3624(b) or his own, he
is not entitled to release. Thus, like the petitioner in Sample,
Robinson’s petition is not ripe for review, and the instant
appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See
Sample, 406 F.3d at 312. Moreover, even if Robinson’s request
for relief were not premature, his argument would be foreclosed
under present law by Moreland v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 431
F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1906
(2006).
APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --