Jude P. Thomas v. WARDEN DEROSA On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of…

APS-12 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-2724
________________
JUDE P. THOMAS,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN DEROSA
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-04077)
District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 14, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE AND FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: November 9, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Jude P. Thomas appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the

-- 1 of 2 --

In his Motion in Opposition of Summary Action, Thomas also argues that application1
of the BOP’s calculation results in an ex post facto violation in his case, because he was
convicted in 1992 and the BOP’s formal regulation was not adopted until 1997. “We
generally do not address arguments that were not made in the district court and we
therefore decline to consider the appellant[‘s] current argument as a ground for reversing
the decision of the district court.” Ziccardi v. City of Philadelphia, 288 F.3d 57, 65 (3d
Cir. 2002).
2
District of New Jersey, denying his petition for habeas corpus. In his petition, Thomas
argued that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was miscalculating his “good time credits”
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). Thomas argued that the BOP incorrectly based its
calculations on the number of days actually served rather than the length of the sentence
imposed.
We recently addressed the identical arguments in O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172
(3d Cir. 2005). We concluded, as did the District Court here, that the BOP’s
interpretation of the statute, which utilizes a formula based on the time actually served, is
reasonable. We therefore will affirm the District Court’s order.1

-- 2 of 2 --