Francisco Gonzalez v. RONNIE HOLT, Warden, FCI-Schuylkill

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1518
________________
FRANCISCO GONZALEZ,
Appellant
v.
RONNIE HOLT, Warden, FCI-Schuylkill; A. LEONARD, Unit
Manager, FCI-Schuylkill; Mr. PLESH, Case Manager,
FCI-Schuylkill; BOP ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
District Judge: Honorable Richard P. Conaboy
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00086)
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 27, 2005
BEFORE: ROTH, McKEE and ALDISERT, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: April 6, 2006 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Francisco Gonzalez pled guilty in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to one count of conspiracy to commit robbery

-- 1 of 2 --

affecting interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. On September 13, 2000,
he was sentenced to 151 months in prison. On January 13, 2005, Gonzalez commenced
this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, claiming that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has erred in
projecting his release date based on its award of good-time credits. According to
Gonzalez, he is entitled to an award of 679 days of good-time credit over the life of his
sentence rather than the 592 days that the BOP has projected he will earn based on the
actual amount of time Gonzalez will serve. Gonzalez contends that the BOP has
misinterpreted 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b).
The District Court denied the habeas petition, concluding that the BOP’s method
of calculating good-time credit is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the language of
§ 3624(b). Gonzalez timely filed this appeal. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a).
In O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2005), this Court recently rejected the
same argument that Gonzalez advances here. In O’Donald, we held that although the
meaning of § 3624(b) is ambiguous, we must defer to the BOP’s reasonable interpretation
of the statutory language. Id. at 174. Gonzalez’s challenge to the calculation of his good-
time credit is identical to that raised and rejected in O’Donald. As such, we will affirm
the District Court’s denial of the habeas petition.
2

-- 2 of 2 --