Jeffrey Jones v. B. Lammer

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 25-2921
JEFFREY R. JONES,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
B
RIAN LAMMER,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin.
No. 25-cv-661-jdp — James D. Peterson, Chief Judge.
____________________
SUBMITTED JULY 28, 2026
*
— DECIDED JULY 29, 2026
____________________
Before SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and MALDONADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Jeffrey Jones, a federal prisoner convicted of
drug trafficking offenses, challenges the dismissal of his peti-
tion for relief for under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He contests the de-

*
We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because
the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments,
and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F
ED. R. APP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).

2 No. 25-2921
termination of the Federal Bureau of Prisons that his convic-
tion for distributing fentanyl makes him ineligible for that re-
lief. We affirm.
Jones pleaded guilty in 2021 to distributing 40 grams or
more of a mixture or substance containing fentanyl,
see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(B)(vi); 18 U.S.C. § 2, and was sen-
tenced to 150 months’ imprisonment. In 2025, he petitioned
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing
that the Bureau of Prisons arbitrarily denied him time credits
under the First Step Act. He argued that two of the Act’s stat-
utory provisions—18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) and (lxviii),
which exclude prisoners with certain drug convictions from
earning time credits—conflict and that their application is am-
biguous.
The district court denied the petition. The court deter-
mined that Jones’s conviction under § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi) for dis-
tributing 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance contain-
ing fentanyl rendered him ineligible under
§ 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) for time credits under the Act. And the
court concluded that Jones failed to show any inconsistency
or redundancy between § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) and
§ 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii).
We begin with a few words about the First Step Act. The
Act provides eligible federal prisoners with the opportunity
to earn time credits by “successfully complet[ing] evidence-
based recidivism reduction programming or productive ac-
tivities.” 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A). But certain enumerated
convictions disqualify prisoners from earning time credits.
See id. § 3632(d)(4)(D). Relevant here, the Act expressly ex-
cludes prisoners convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi)

No. 25-2921 3
for distributing 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing fentanyl from being eligible for time credits:
Ineligible prisoners.--A prisoner is ineligi-
ble to receive time credits under this paragraph
if the prisoner is serving a sentence for a convic-
tion under any of the following provisions of
law: ....
(lxvi) Subparagraph (A)(vi) or (B)(vi) of sec-
tion 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)) or paragraph (1)(F) or (2)(F)
of section 1010(b) of the Controlled Substances
Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)), relat-
ing to manufacturing, distributing, dispensing,
or possessing with intent to manufacture, dis-
tribute, or dispense, a mixture or substance con-
taining a detectable amount of N-phenyl-N-[1-
(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide, or
any analogue thereof.
†

18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi). Similarly, a prisoner is dis-
qualified from earning time credits if (a) he is convicted under
§ 841(b)(1), and (b) the sentencing court finds that “the offense
involved a mixture or substance containing a detectable
amount of” fentanyl and the prisoner “was an organizer,
leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense.”
Id. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii).
On appeal, Jones concedes that his conviction falls under
§ 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) but maintains that this provision is in

†
N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide is a sci-
entific term for fentanyl.

4 No. 25-2921
“irreconcilable conflict” with § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii). Both pro-
visions overlap, he says, in that they address fentanyl-related
convictions, but he urges he should be eligible for time credits
because the sentencing court did not find that he was a leader
or supervisor for purposes of § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii). And be-
cause the application of these provisions is ambiguous, he ar-
gues that the ambiguity should be resolved in his favor.
As the district court rightly concluded, there is no ambi-
guity concerning the application of § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) and
§ 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii). The provisions deny time-credit eligi-
bility for different courses of conduct: § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi)
applies when a prisoner’s offense involves a threshold quan-
tity of mixtures or substances including fentanyl, while
§ 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii) applies when the offense involves a de-
tectable amount of fentanyl and the prisoner acted as a leader
or supervisor in the offense. That a prisoner could conceiva-
bly be rendered ineligible for time credits under both provi-
sions does not mean that a prisoner is eligible for time credits
when his offense falls under one provision but not the other.
AFFIRMED