Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a federal prisoner challenged the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, contesting the calculation of good-conduct credits and his eligibility for parole. The appellant, convicted of mail fraud and witness tampering, argued that his good-conduct credits should be based on the sentence imposed rather than time served, citing his status as a Lakota Sioux Indian to invoke the Indian canon of construction. However, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, referencing the unambiguous language of 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) and rejecting any interpretive canons. The appellant's claim for parole consideration under repealed statutes was dismissed, as the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 applies to offenses committed after November 1, 1987. The court further held that there is no property interest in parole consideration, referencing *Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal Correctional Complex*. Additionally, the appellant's claims under the Administrative Procedure Act were waived due to his failure to raise them at the district court level. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal, and the opinion was not designated for publication or as precedent, except in specific circumstances.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Indian Canon of Constructionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Banks's invocation of the Indian canon of construction was rejected as the court found the statute governing good-conduct time to be unambiguous, thereby precluding the application of interpretive canons.
Reasoning: Banks attempts to distinguish his case due to his status as a Lakota Sioux Indian, invoking the Indian canon of construction. However, the court maintains that the unambiguous statute cannot be circumvented by this canon.
Good-Conduct Time Calculation under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the district court's dismissal of Banks's claim that good-conduct credits should be calculated based on the imposed sentence rather than time served, citing the clear and unambiguous language of the statute.
Reasoning: Banks argues that his good-conduct credits should be calculated based on the imposed sentence rather than the time served. This claim was previously rejected in *Moreland v. Federal Bureau of Prisons*, where the court found the governing statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), to be unambiguous.
Property Interest in Parole Considerationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that Banks does not have a property interest in parole consideration, referencing established precedent that parole consideration does not constitute a protected property interest.
Reasoning: The court counters that he has no such property interest, referencing *Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal Correctional Complex*.
Repealed Statutes and Parole Eligibilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that Banks is not entitled to parole consideration under repealed statutes, as the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 applies to offenses committed after November 1, 1987.
Reasoning: He also claims entitlement to parole consideration under statutes repealed by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, effective for offenses committed after November 1, 1987, which applies to his convictions.
Waiver of Claims under the Administrative Procedure Actsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Banks's claims under the APA were deemed waived because they were not raised in the district court, and thus not preserved for appellate review.
Reasoning: Lastly, Banks contends the district court erred by not considering his claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), but he failed to raise these claims in the lower court, resulting in waiver.