United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Charles A. Allen III
Walter Davies, Director, Hampshire House; and J. Ray Ormond, Regional Director, Bureau of Prisons, Northeast Regional Office
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. JOHNSTONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is petitioner Charles A. Allen III's filing,
entitled “Motion for Good-Time Credits (Pursuant to the
First Step Act)” (Doc. No. 1), which this court has
construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the
calculation of his federal prison sentence by the Federal
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). The matter is before
the undersigned magistrate judge for preliminary review to
determine whether the petition is facially valid and may
proceed. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
(“§ 2254 Rules”); § 2254 Rule 1(b)
(allowing application of the § 2254 Rules to any habeas
asserts that he is presently serving a 132-month sentence
imposed by this court in United States v. Allen, No.
09-cr-167-01-PB (D.N.H.). Allen asserts here that the BOP has
recently transferred him to the Hampshire House halfway
house, and that he is scheduled to be released from
incarceration on June 10, 2019.
petition, Allen invokes Section 102(b) of the
recently-enacted First Step Act of 2018, which, inter alia,
amends 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1), the statute which
authorizes and governs the BOP's calculation of federal
sentences imposed by the federal courts. Section 102(b)(1)
amends § 3624(b)(1) by raising the amount of good-time
credit federal prisoners may receive, for each year of their
sentence, from forty-seven days to fifty-four days.
now challenges the BOP's calculation of his sentence and
release date, and asks the court to direct the BOP to grant
him additional good-time credit. Allen contends that under
§ 102(b)(1), he is entitled to an additional seven days
of good-time credit for each year of his eleven-year
sentence, amounting to a total of seventy-seven additional
days of good-time credit. Applying that figure to his
presently calculated June 10, 2019 release date, Allen claims
he should have been released on March 25, 2019.
states that the BOP has declined to recalculate his sentence
based on the First Step Act, and further that the BOP does
not intend to make any good-time credit calculation changes
until July 2019 which, Allen alleges, will deprive him of
good- time credit to which he is entitled under §
102(b). Allen further alleges, without specificity, that some
federal prisoners with release dates in June, July, and
August 2019, have already had their good-time credit
recalculated and adjusted under the First Step Act, while
Allen's June 2019 release date has not been so adjusted.
Nature of Action
appears Allen intended to file his instant request for a
court order, directing the BOP to recalculate his good-time
credit, as a motion in his closed criminal case. However,
“a post-conviction motion attacking either the
execution of a sentence or confinement that is not the result
of a trial court's judgment must be brought in a petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district where the
defendant is incarcerated or in a regional BOP office.”
United States v. Powell, No. 5:11-cr-75-JMH-1, 2019
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60012, at *3, 2019 WL 1521972, at *1 (E.D.
Ky. Apr. 8, 2019); see also Fusco v. Grondolsky, No.
17-cv-10771-DHH, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145891, at *8-*9, 2018
WL 4100039, at *3 (D. Mass. Aug. 27, 2018). As stated above,
after a sentence has been imposed by the court, discretion
for the calculation of the sentence rests entirely with the
BOP. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3624(a)-(b).
Allen's challenge to the BOP's calculation of his
good-time credit must be raised in a § 2241 petition,
and the court has so construed his motion.
undertaking § 2254 Rule 4 preliminary review, this court
decides whether the petition contains sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face and cognizable in a federal habeas
action. See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856
(1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss
summarily any habeas petition that appears legally
insufficient on its face.”). When a habeas petitioner
is proceeding pro ...