Chad Gilmore v. Jonathan C. Miner, Warden, Fci Fairton

HPS-75 (April 2005) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 05-1977
____________________________________
CHAD GILMORE,
Appellant
v.
JONATHAN C. MINER,
WARDEN, FCI FAIRTON
_____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00799)
District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 29, 2005
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
Filed: May 27, 2005
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Chad Gilmore, a prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, appeals pro se the order of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey denying his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s
order.
According to his § 2241 petition, Gilmore pled guilty to receipt of child
pornography in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On January
27, 2003, Gilmore was sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three
years of supervised release. The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has calculated that Gilmore
is eligible under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) to earn up to 125 days of good conduct time.
In February 2005, Gilmore filed the underlying § 2241 petition in the
District Court for the District of New Jersey. In his petition, Gilmore alleged that the
BOP misinterpreted § 3624(b), depriving him of 19 days of good conduct time.
Specifically, Gilmore argued that § 3624(b) allows him to earn up to 54 days per year of
the term of sentence imposed, not 54 days per year of time actually served as the BOP’s
calculation provides. By order entered March 1, 2005, the District Court denied
Gilmore’s petition. This timely appeal followed.
The outcome of this appeal is controlled by our recent decision in O’Donald
v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2005). In O’Donald, 402 F.3d at 174, we held that the
meaning of § 3624(b) is ambiguous, and thus deferred to the BOP’s reasonable
interpretation of the statute. Gilmore’s claim, identical to that raised and rejected in
O’Donald, is unavailing. In short, for the reasons described in O’Donald, the District
Court properly rejected Gilmore’s challenge to the BOP’s calculation of his good conduct
time.

-- 2 of 3 --

Because this appeal presents “no substantial question,” 3d Cir. LAR 27.4
and I.O.P. 10.6, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s March 1, 2005, order.

-- 3 of 3 --