Clayton v. Fleming

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
August 10, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-11330
Summary Calendar
ALANDA JABAR CLAYTON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
L. E. FLEMING, Warden, Federal Medical Center-Fort Worth,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:03-CV-1241-A
--------------------
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alanda Jabar Clayton, federal prisoner # 13570-064, appeals
the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition
alleging that his constitutional rights were violated when the
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) denied him a one-year sentence
reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), after initially
informing him that he was eligible for such a reduction.
Clayton argues that the Supreme Court decision in Lopez v.
Davis, 531 U.S. 230 (2001), was impermissibly applied

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-11330
-2-
retroactively to deprive him of eligibility for a one-year
reduction in his sentence. Contrary to Clayton’s belief, Lopez
did not create a new law that denied him eligibility for early
release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e). Because Lopez merely declared
permissible a regulation that had gone into effect prior to
Clayton’s conviction, there is no retroactivity issue here.
Clayton argues that when his sentence was recalculated he
acquired a liberty interest in early release and that the
subsequent change in his eligibility status for early release
violated his due process rights. His claims fail because there
is no protected liberty interest in early release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3621(e). See Rublee v. Fleming, 160 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir.
1998); Venegas v. Henman, 126 F.3d 760, 765 (5th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Clayton’s
petition, and its judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --