Barry Wyllie v. Warden K. Hogsten

DLD-291 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 07-1603
________________
BARRY WYLLIE, Appellant
v.
WARDEN K. HOGSTEN
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 06-cv-00291)
District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
____________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
June 28, 2007
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: July 18, 2007 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Barry Wyllie appeals from the District Court’s order denying his habeas petition
filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his habeas petition, Wyllie challenges the
calculation of his good conduct time (“GCT”) by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).

-- 1 of 3 --

In the petition, Wyllie asserts eight claims. However, all of Wyllie’s claims relate1
to the BOP’s calculation of his GCT.
2
Because we conclude that Wyllie’s appeal presents no substantial question, we will
summarily affirm the District Court’s order.
In January 1998, Wyllie was sentenced in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York to 100 months imprisonment to be followed by a three-year
term of supervised release for affecting commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a). He was also sentenced to a consecutive sixty-month term of imprisonment for
violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The BOP projects Wyllie’s release date will be in April
2008. The calculation of Wyllie’s GCT is based on the time Wyllie will actually serve in
prison, not on the entire 160-month sentence. Wyllie disagrees with the BOP’s
calculation and states that he should be released on December 27, 2007.
After administratively challenging the BOP’s calculation, Wyllie filed this § 2241
petition. In the habeas petition, Wyllie argues that the BOP’s calculation of his GCT
deprives him his entitled GCT. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the habeas1
petition. Ultimately, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation. Wyllie timely filed a notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). We exercise
plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous
standard to its findings of fact. See Ruggiano v. Reish, 307 F.3d 121, 126 (3d Cir. 2002).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We resolved the issue raised in Wyllie’s appeal in O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d
172 (3d Cir. 2005)(per curiam), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1906 (2006). In O’Donald, we
stated that the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) is ambiguous. Thus, we deferred to the
BOP’s reasonable interpretation of the statute. See O’Donald, 402 F.3d at 174. Wyllie’s
appeal is controlled by our decision in O’Donald and presents us with no substantial
question. Therefore, we will grant the Appellee’s motion and summarily affirm the
District Court’s order.

-- 3 of 3 --