Sample v. Morrison
| Decision Date | 22 March 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-40698 Summary Calendar.,04-40698 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 406 F.3d 310 |
| Parties | Brandon Creighton SAMPLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marvin MORRISON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
F. Clinton Broden, Broden & Mickelsen, Dallas, TX, for Sample.
Michael Wayne Lockhart, Beaumont, TX, for Morrison.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
In 2001, Brandon Creighton Sample, now a federal prisoner (# 33939-037), pleaded guilty to money laundering and other offenses and was sentenced to a total of 168 months in prison. He allegedly has been in custody since May 28, 2000. Sample filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition asserting that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") is calculating his good time credit in a manner contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). He argued that the statute requires that a prisoner be awarded "54 days" of credit for each year of his prison term, as imposed by the court, whereas the BOP is computing such credit based on each year served, which will allegedly result in his receiving 98 fewer days of good time credit over the course of his prison term. The district court denied Sample relief, concluding that the BOP's regulatory construction of any ambiguity in 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) was permissible under the standard of Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). See 28 C.F.R. § 523.20.
Whether Sample's sentence is computed on the basis of the BOP's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) or his own, Sample will not be eligible for release before 2012. Moreover, the statute makes clear that good time credit must be earned by a prisoner on an annual basis; it is not awarded in advance. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal courts' jurisdiction to "cases" and "controversies." U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. In order to give meaning to Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, the courts have developed justiciability doctrines, such as the standing and ripeness doctrines. United Transp. Union v. Foster, 205 F.3d 851, 857 (5th Cir.2000); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Since standing and ripeness are essential components of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the lack of either can be raised at any time by a party or by the court. Sommers Drug Stores Co. Emp. Profit Sharing Trust v. Corrigan, 883 F.2d 345, 348 (5th Cir.1989); see also Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1341 (5th Cir.1994). "Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine designed `to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.'" National Park Hospitality Ass'n v. Department of Interior, 538 U.S. 803, 807-08, 123 S.Ct. 2026, 155 L.Ed.2d 1017 (2003) (citation omitted).
Given the temporally distant and speculative nature of Sample's claim, his allegations do not establish that "he `will sustain immediate injury' and `that such injury would be redressed by the relief requested.'" See Cinel, 15 F.3d at 1341 (citation omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that Sample's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is not ripe for review, and we DISMISS the instant appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Even if we were to assume arguendo that we have subject-matter jurisdiction, we would conclude that the district court did not err in denying Sample's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. See United States v. Santos-Riviera, 183 F.3d 367, 369 (5th Cir.1999). The appropriate starting point when interpreting any statute is its plain meaning. See United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 109 S.Ct. 1026, 103 L.Ed.2d 290 (1989). "In ascertaining the plain meaning of the statute, the court must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well as the language and design of the statute as a whole." K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291, 108 S.Ct. 1811, 100 L.Ed.2d 313 (1988).
Section 3624(b)(1), 18 U.S.C., reads in its entirety as follows:
Subject to paragraph (2), a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year other than a term of imprisonment for the duration of the prisoner's life, may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner's sentence, beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year of the prisoner's term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year of the term, subject to determination by the Bureau of Prisons that, during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations. Subject to paragraph (2), if the Bureau determines that, during that year, the prisoner has not satisfactorily complied with such institutional regulations, the prisoner shall receive no such credit toward service of the prisoner's sentence or shall receive such lesser credit as the Bureau determines to be appropriate. In awarding credit under this section, the Bureau shall consider whether the prisoner, during the relevant period, has earned, or is making satisfactory progress toward earning, a high school diploma or an equivalent degree. Credit that has not been earned may not later be granted. Subject to paragraph (2), credit for the last year or portion of a year of the term of imprisonment shall be prorated and credited within the last six weeks of the sentence.
(emphasis added).*
We disagree with Sample's contention that the "plain language" of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1) requires that his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Center for Individual Freedom v. Carmouche
...to the constitutionality of the statute. 2. See Bissonnet Invs., LLC v. Quinlan, 320 F.3d 520, 522 (5th Cir.2003); Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir.2005). 3. Exceptions include circumstances where third-party standing is appropriate. 4. La. Bd. of Ethics, Campaign Finance Advi......
-
Moreland v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
...statute is correct and rejecting the same arguments Moreland puts forth.11 However, neither of those decisions is binding precedent. In Sample v. Morrison,12 the court concluded that section 3624(b)(1) "plainly states that a prisoner cannot earn any good time credit until he has served at l......
-
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp..
...to decide disputes that are not yet justiciable.” Lopez v. City of Houston, 617 F.3d 336, 342 (5th Cir.2010) (citing Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir.2005)) (per curiam). “A court should dismiss a case for lack of ‘ripeness' when the case is abstract or hypothetical.” Monk v. ......
-
Gruver v. State, CIVIL ACTION 18-772-SDD-EWD
...21, 2017) (citing Cadle Co. v. Neubauer , 562 F.3d 369, 374 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted)).67 Id. at *3 (citing Sample v. Morrison , 406 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir. 2005) ).68 Pederson , 213 F.3d at 869 (quoting Sierra Club v. Peterson , 185 F.3d 349, 360 (5th Cir. 1999) ).69 Lujan v. Defs......
-
Sample v. Morrison.
...Appeals Court GOOD TIME CREDIT Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2005). A federal prisoner filed a habeas corpus petition asserting that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was calculating his good time credit in a manner that was contrary to the federal prisoner release statute. The distr......
-
Sample v. Morrison.
...Appeals Court GOOD TIME Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2005). A federal prisoner filed a habeas corpus petition asserting that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was calculating his good time credit in a manner that was contrary to the federal prisoner release statute. The district cou......