IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-51026
Summary Calendar
CHRISTOPHER SEPEDA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
LESTER E. FLEMING, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-97-CV-602
- - - - - - - - - -
August 10, 1998
Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Christopher Sepeda, federal prisoner # 61190-080, appeals
the district court’s denial as moot of his application for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In Venegas v.
Henman, 126 F.3d 760, 762 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S.
Ct. 1679 (1998), this court addressed the issue of sentence
reductions for inmates who completed substance abuse treatment
programs. Specifically, we concluded that it was within the
BOP’s discretion to deny a sentence reduction to inmates with a
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-51026
-2-
sentencing guideline enhancement for possession of a firearm in
relation to a drug trafficking crime. See id. 764-65.
The Bureau of Prisons’ exclusion of
felon-in-possession of a weapon convictions
and drug convictions with enhanced sentences
due to possession of a weapon from
eligibility for early release after substance
abuse treatment is consistent with the letter
and spirit of the Bureau’s authority as
derived from section 3621(e). The loss of
the mere opportunity to be considered for
discretionary early release is too
speculative to constitute a deprivation of a
constitutionally protected liberty interest.
Id. at 765 (citing Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir.
1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1690 (1996)).
Given the holding in Venegas, Sepeda has not presented an
issue of constitutional dimension. It is on this basis that the
dismissal of his § 2241 application is affirmed. See Bickford v.
International Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 131 (5th Cir. 1981).
Respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.