Andrew Steven Gray v. MARION FEATHER, Warden, FDC Seatac; DR. ROBERT LONE, RDAP Coordinator

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW STEVEN GRAY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MARION FEATHER, Warden, FDC
Seatac; DR. ROBERT LONE, RDAP
Coordinator,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 12-35197
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02045-MJP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013**
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Andrew Steven Gray appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a section
FILED
SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-35197 2
2241 habeas petition, Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2000), and we
affirm.
Gray challenges a Bureau of Prisons rule categorically excluding inmates
convicted of offenses involving “the carrying, possession, or use of a firearm”
from eligibility for early release following completion of a Residential Drug Abuse
Treatment Program. See 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b)(5)(ii) (2009). Gray’s claim is
foreclosed by our decision in Peck v. Thomas, in which we upheld the challenged
rule as procedurally valid under Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
697 F.3d 767, 772-73 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1289 (2013).
Contrary to Gray’s contention, Peck does not conflict with our earlier decisions in
Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008), and Crickon v. Thomas, 579
F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2009).
Gray’s motion to file the supplemental brief submitted on March 5, 2013, is
granted. The arguments raised in the supplemental brief do not change our
analysis.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --