F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JAN 19 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
JAMES WARD, JIMMY SCROGER,
and CHRISTOPHER LAMAR Nos. 99-3125
GUIDO, 99-3129
99-3143
Petitioners - Appellees,
v.
J. W. BOOKER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(D.C. NOS. CV-98-3274-RDR, CV-98-3260-RDR, CV-98-3266-RDR)
Sean Connelly, United States Department of Justice, Denver, Colorado (Jackie N.
Williams, United States Attorney, and Mary Kreiner Ramirez, Assistant United
States Attorney, District of Kansas, Topeka, Kansas, with him on the briefs), for
the Appellant.
Jill M. Wichlens, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Michael G. Katz, Federal
Public Defender with her on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for the Appellees.
Before BALDOCK , McWILLIAMS , and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges.
ANDERSON , Circuit Judge.
Petitioners James Ward, Jimmy E. Scroger, and Christopher Lamar Guido,
former inmates at the Leavenworth Federal Prison Camp in Leavenworth, Kansas,
brought these habeas actions against respondent J.W. Booker, the warden at
Leavenworth, challenging a nationwide Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) rule which
initially denied them a sentencing reduction available to certain inmates who
successfully completed a drug treatment program. The BOP’s rule initially denied
the sentence reduction to petitioners because their sentences for drug offenses
were enhanced under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm. The
district court granted the three habeas petitions and ordered the BOP to reconsider
each petitioner’s request for a sentence reduction, without regard to the
petitioners’ receipt of § 2D1.1(b)(1) sentencing enhancements. The BOP did so,
determined that there was no other basis for denying the requests, and reduced
each petitioner’s sentence by one year. 1
It now appeals, arguing the district court
erred in invalidating its application of its rule to initially deny petitioners’ their
sentence reductions. We affirm the district court.
Apparently, all three have been released to halfway houses to finish the
1
custodial portion of their sentences, prior to commencing their terms of
supervised release. While there was initially some question whether this appeal is
moot, all parties now agree it is not, and we concur in that agreement.
-2-
BACKGROUND
I. Petitioners’ Convictions and Sentences:
James Ward was convicted of possession with intent to distribute and
distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His sentence was
enhanced under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) because an accessible firearm was found
during a search of his residence. Jimmy Scroger was convicted of possession
with intent to distribute and with attempted manufacture of methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His sentence was enhanced under
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) because loaded firearms were found at the residence where he was
arrested. Christopher Guido was convicted of attempted possession with intent to
distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). His sentence was
enhanced under § 2D1.1(b)(1) because a loaded handgun was found on his person
when he was arrested.
II. Statutory and Regulatory Provisions Relating to Drug
Treatment Programs:
In the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Congress
directed the BOP to make available to “eligible prisoners” residential substance
abuse treatment programs. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(1). “Eligible prisoners” are
defined as those “determined by the Bureau of Prisons to have a substance abuse
problem” and who are “willing to participate in a residential substance abuse
-3-
treatment program.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(5)(B). To provide an incentive for
prisoners to participate in the treatment programs, Congress provided that:
The period a prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense remains in
custody after successfully completing a treatment program may be
reduced by the Bureau of Prisons, but such reduction may not be
more than one year from the term the prisoner must otherwise serve.
18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). The statute does not define the term “convicted of a
nonviolent offense.” The statute also does not establish any additional criteria for
determining eligibility for sentence reduction. The legislative history indicates
Congress intended to give the BOP discretion to develop such additional criteria. 2
See Fristoe v. Thompson , 144 F.3d 627, 631 (10th Cir. 1998) (“It is undisputed
that the BOP has been delegated the authority to interpret § 3621(e)(2)(B).”).
Accordingly, to establish such criteria, the BOP promulgated a regulation in
1995 which excluded from eligibility inmates whose “current offense” is “a crime
of violence” as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). 3
See 28 C.F.R.
2
The House Report states in part:
In effect, this subparagraph [18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B)] authorizes
the Bureau of Prisons to shorten by up to one year the prison term of
a prisoner who has successfully completed a treatment program,
based on criteria to be established and uniformly applied by the
Bureau of Prisons.
H.R. Rep. No. 103-320, at 7, 1993 WL 537335 (1993).
3
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) defines a crime of violence as follows:
(continued...)
-4-
§ 550.58 (1995). The BOP also issued Program Statement No. 5162.02 on July
24, 1995, which further explained its interpretation of the term “crime of
violence.” As this court noted in a prior decision addressing the validity of that
Program Statement:
Section 9 of the Program Statement provide[d] that convictions . . .
obtained under 21 U.S.C. § 841 or § 846, should be considered
convictions for a “crime of violence” if the sentencing court
increased the base level of the sentence for possession of a dangerous
weapon during the commission of the offense. Under the rationale of
the Program Statement and the regulation, then, [a conviction under
§ 841] was not a “nonviolent offense,” because of the sentencing
enhancement and [the prisoner] was therefore ineligible for the
sentence reduction.
Fristoe , 144 F.3d at 629-30. Thus, the initial Program Statement explicitly
defined “nonviolent offense” under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) to exclude offenses
where a sentence was enhanced based upon possession of a firearm. 4
3
(...continued)
an offense that is a felony and–
(A) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use
of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(B) that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical
force against the person or property of another may be used in the
course of committing the offense.
4
Program Statement 5162.02 provided the following example:
Example: Section 841 of Title 21 United States Code makes it a
crime to manufacture, distribute, or possess with the intent to
(continued...)
-5-
Inmates around the country began to challenge the Program Statement.
Among them was the petitioner in Fristoe , who articulated his argument to this
court as “whether the BOP has adopted a permissible construction of the statute
[18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B)].” Fristoe , 144 F.3d at 630. We concluded it had not:
“[t]he BOP’s interpretation violates the plain language of the statute and cannot
be upheld.” Id. at 631. We noted that most other courts had reached the same
conclusion. See Martin v. Gerlinski , 133 F.3d 1076, 1079-81 (8th Cir. 1998);
Bush v. Pitzer , 133 F.3d 455, 456-57 (7th Cir. 1997); Roussos v. Menifee , 122
F.3d 159, 161-64 (3d Cir. 1997); Downey v. Crabtree , 100 F.3d 662, 666-71 (9th
Cir. 1996); but see Pelissero v. Thompson , 170 F.3d 442, 445-48 (4th Cir. 1999)
(upholding the BOP’s Program Statement against a similar challenge); Venegas v.
Henman , 126 F.3d 760, 761-63 (5th Cir. 1997) (same).
4
(...continued)
distribute drugs. Under the Sentencing Guidelines (§ 2D1.1 and
§ 2D1.11) the defendant could receive an increase in his or her base
offense level because of a “Specific Offense Characteristic,” e.g., if a
dangerous weapon was possessed during commission of the offense,
the court would increase the defendant’s base offense level by 2
levels. This particular “Specific Offense Characteristic” (possession
of a dangerous weapon during the commission of a drug offense)
poses a substantial risk that force may be used against persons or
property. Accordingly, a defendant who has received a conviction
for manufacturing drugs, (21 U.S.C. § 841) and receives a two level
enhancement for possession of a firearm has been convicted of a
“crime of violence.”
Program Statement 5162.02 at ¶ 9, Appellees’ Answer Br. Addendum A at 7.
-6-
Presumably in response to this judicial development, the BOP issued a new
regulation and new Program Statement. These are the provisions applicable to
and challenged by petitioners in this case. The current version of 28 C.F.R.
§ 550.58 provides in part as follows:
An inmate who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment . . . for a
nonviolent offense, and who is determined to have a substance abuse
problem, and successfully completes a residential drug abuse
treatment program during his or her current commitment may be
eligible, in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, for early
release by a period not to exceed 12 months.
(a) Additional early release criteria.
(1) As an exercise of the discretion vested in the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, the following categories of inmates are
not eligible for early release:
....
(vi) Inmates whose current offense is a felony:
(A) That has as an element, the actual, attempted, or threatened use
of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(B) That involved the carrying, possession, or use of a firearm or
other dangerous weapon or explosives (including any explosive
material or explosive device), or
(C) That by its nature or conduct, presents a serious potential risk of
physical force against the person or property of another . . . .
28 C.F.R. § 550.58. Additionally, on October 9, 1997, the BOP issued a new
Program Statement, No. 5162.04, which states in pertinent part as follows:
-7-
As an exercise of the discretion vested in the Director, an
inmate serving a sentence for an offense that falls under the
provisions described below shall be precluded from receiving certain
Bureau program benefits.
Inmates whose current offense is a felony that:
• has as an element, the actual, attempted, or threatened use of
physical force against the person or property of another, or
• involved the carrying, possession, or use of a firearm or other
dangerous weapon or explosives (including any explosive
material or explosive device), or
• by its nature or conduct, presents a serious potential risk of
physical force against the person or property of another, . . . .
Program Statement 5162.04 at ¶ 7, Appellant’s Opening Br. Addendum R-2 at
8-9. Like the previous Program Statement, the new Program Statement contains
the example of a 21 U.S.C. § 841 offense with a “Specific Offense Characteristic
Enhancement” that renders the offender ineligible for sentence reduction. See
supra n.4. As it explicitly states, “[a]ccordingly, an inmate who was convicted of
manufacturing drugs (21 U.S.C. § 841) and received a two-level enhancement for
possession of a firearm has been convicted of an offense that will preclude him
from receiving certain Bureau program benefits .” Id. at ¶ 7(b), Appellant’s
Opening Br. Addendum R-2 at 12.
In sum, the new regulation and Program Statement lead to the same result
as the prior, invalidated Program Statement, in that inmates whose sentences were
enhanced because of firearms involvement are ineligible for the sentence
reduction of 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). However, they purport to accomplish
-8-
that result as an exercise of the BOP’s discretion to determine eligibility criteria,
not as an interpretation of the term “convicted of a nonviolent offense” under
§ 3621(e)(2)(B). The crucial question presented by this case is whether that
difference in methodology is meaningful and significant, or whether the rationale
of Fristoe dictates the conclusion that the revised regulation and new Program
Statement are also invalid.
DISCUSSION
As both parties agree, this case presents a purely legal question: whether
the BOP’s new regulation and Program Statement—which deny sentence
reductions to prisoners whose sentences for nonviolent drug offenses were
enhanced because firearms were involved—are permissible as an exercise of BOP
discretion under § 3621(e)(2)(B) or are invalid under Fristoe . The district court
held they were invalid, determining that the rationale of our prior decision in
Fristoe compelled that conclusion. We note that we have recently held that our
obligation to follow prior decisions “includes not only the very narrow holdings
of those prior cases, but also the reasoning underlying those holdings.” United
States v. Meyers , No. 98-8086, 2000 WL 3843 at *__ (10th Cir. Jan. 4, 2000).
We review the district court’s decision de novo and hold that the new regulation
and Program Statement are invalid under the reasoning and rationale of Fristoe .
-9-
We begin by examining Fristoe . The petitioner in Fristoe was convicted of
conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. At
sentencing, he received a two-level enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1) for firearms
possession. Although Fristoe addressed the earlier version of 28 C.F.R. § 550.58
and Program Statement 5106.02, we use the same legal analysis to examine the
validity of the current version of the regulation and the current Program Statement
(No. 5106.04). Accordingly, we “interpret[] the statute [18 U.S.C.
§ 3621(e)(2)(B)] to determine whether the BOP exceeded its statutory authority.”
Fristoe , 144 F.3d at 630-31. 5
We employ a slightly different analysis, however,
depending on the particular means by which the BOP presents its interpretation:
An agency’s interpretation of a statute by formal regulation or
adjudication is entitled to deference, so long as the agency’s
interpretation is based upon a permissible construction of the statute.
Where the agency’s interpretation of the statute is made informally,
however, such as by a “program statement,” the interpretation is not
entitled to Chevron deference, but will instead be considered only to
the extent that it is well-reasoned and has “power to persuade.”
Id. at 631 (citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984)) (further citation omitted).
5
As we noted in Fristoe, we may not review the substantive decisions of the
BOP under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). See 18 U.S.C. § 3625; Fristoe, 144 F.3d at
630. However, we may review whether the BOP acted in a way which exceeded
its statutory authority.
-10-
In Fristoe , we began by noting that “courts typically do not consider the
predicate drug offense here, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, a ‘crime of
violence.’” Id. We therefore deduced that the BOP’s classification of Mr.
Fristoe’s nonviolent drug offense as a “crime of violence” under § 3621(e)(2)(B)
“must rest entirely upon consideration of sentencing factors which are not
implicated categorically by the nature of his underlying offense.” Id. Such
“[r]eliance on sentencing enhancements . . . conflicts with the plain language of
the statute . . . [which] refers to prisoners ‘ convicted of a nonviolent offense .’”
Id. As we explained in a subsequent opinion discussing Fristoe :
We reasoned that § 3621(e)(2)B) simply does not authorize BOP to
treat sentence enhancements or factors as if they were “convictions.”
In other words, if the prisoner has not been convicted of a violent
offense, BOP cannot use sentencing factors or enhancements to
convert a nonviolent offense into a violent one for purposes of
§ 3621(e)(2)(B).
Martinez v. Flowers , 164 F.3d 1257, 1260 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting Fristoe , 144
F.3d at 632). Significantly, we provided no caveats to our condemnation of the
BOP’s use of sentencing enhancements to convert nonviolent offenses into violent
ones for eligibility purposes under the statute. Indeed, in Fristoe , we described
our holding as “ any resort to sentencing factors in the absence of a conviction of
an offense which constitutes a crime of violence is impermissible.” Fristoe , 144
F.3d at 632 n.3 (emphasis added).
-11-
The BOP argues that, for two reasons, Fristoe does not control our
disposition in this case. First, it argues that Fristoe addressed only the validity of
a BOP Program Statement, not a regulation, and program statements are entitled
to no deference. The BOP’s new rule, by contrast, rests upon both a program
statement and a formal regulation, the latter of which is entitled to Chevron
deference. Second, the BOP argues the prior Program Statement, invalidated in
Fristoe , overtly attempted to define the statutory term “convicted of a crime of
violence” to include convictions of nonviolent offenses with a firearms sentencing
enhancement. The current regulation and Program Statement, by contrast, overtly
reach the same result, but explicitly as an exercise of the discretion clearly
bestowed upon the BOP to determine who may and may not participate in the
sentence reduction program. Thus, the BOP argues, it has not engaged in
improper statutory interpretation; rather it has simply exercised its discretion to
develop eligibility criteria. We address each argument in turn.
I. Regulation vs. Program Statement:
We held in Fristoe that “the rationale of the Program Statement and the
regulation” expressed the BOP’s view that a drug offense with a sentencing
enhancement for firearms possession was not a “nonviolent offense” under
§ 3621(e)(2)(B). Fristoe , 144 F.3d at 630. Despite that reference to the rationale
-12-
of both the regulation and the Program Statement, the focus of our analysis was
on the Program Statement, which, unlike the regulation, explicitly held that
prisoners with drug convictions with firearms sentencing enhancements were
ineligible to participate in the early release program. Indeed, we applied the non-
deferential review standard applicable to “informal” agency interpretations like
program statements, holding that “[t]he BOP’s program statement definition of a
‘nonviolent offense’ is not well-reasoned, and fails to persuade us it is entitled to
deference.” Id. at 631. We therefore assume, for purposes of this appeal, that
Fristoe only clearly invalidated a program statement, not a regulation. We
likewise assume, for purposes of this appeal, that we review in this case both the
regulation and the new Program Statement. 6
Accordingly, we apply the
6
Petitioners argue that the new regulation does not actually state that a
prisoner convicted of a nonviolent offense who received a sentence enhancement
is ineligible for sentence reduction. Rather, they argue, it is only the new
Program Statement which clearly mandates that result. Thus, they argue that, in
this appeal, as in Fristoe, we address only the validity of a program statement.
The BOP does not directly refute this argument, stating only “[i]t is perhaps most
accurate to say that disqualification of inmates who received sentencing
enhancements for gun possession is based on a combination of the new
regulations and the new program statement.” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 3. While
there is some ambiguity as to whether the new regulation clearly addresses
prisoners with § 2D1.1(b)(1) sentence enhancements, we will assume for the
purposes of this appeal that it does. Thus, we address the validity of both the
regulation and the program statement, in context of their use of § 2D1.1(b)(1)
sentence enhancements to determine eligibility.
-13-
deferential review standard to the regulation and the non-deferential review
standard to the Program Statement. See Fristoe , 144 F.3d at 631.
II. Validity of New Regulation and Program Statement:
The BOP argues that the new regulation and Program Statement, unlike the
prior ones, do not attempt to define any statutory term, but merely express
eligibility criteria clearly entrusted to the BOP’s discretion. We believe that the
BOP relies upon “a distinction without a difference.” Kilpatrick v. Houston , 36
F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1330 (N.D. Fla.), aff’d , ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. 1999).
In Fristoe , we held that the operative statute, § 3621(e)(2)(B), plainly stated
that prisoners convicted of nonviolent offenses were eligible for sentence
reductions. We emphasized in that opinion and in Martinez that the statute
addresses convictions , and that convictions for drug offense are nonviolent. We
held that any use of sentence enhancements to turn a conviction of a nonviolent
offense into a violent offense for purposes of § 3621(e)(2)(B) was impermissible,
simply because it ran afoul of the statute’s clear language.
The language of the statute remains unchanged and its focus on convictions
for nonviolent offenses still stands. The BOP’s new regulation and Program
Statement, like the old ones, use sentencing enhancements to effectively override
the statute’s clear statement that a prisoner is eligible if convicted of a nonviolent
-14-
offense. Couching it as an exercise of discretion does not make it any less
contrary to the statute. As a district court recently observed in an opinion
affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit, to hold otherwise would render Fristoe “a trivial
criticism of the Bureau’s drafting technique rather than a substantive ruling on the
meaning of the statute and the scope of the Bureau’s authority thereunder.”
Kilpatrick , 36 F. Supp. 2d at 1330. See Samples v. Scibana , 1999 WL 1041815 at
*5 (E.D. Mich. 1999) (“This Court further agrees with other district courts that
the amendments to both 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(1) and Program Statement 5162.04
are an attempt by the BOP to disregard the line of federal circuit court cases that
held that the BOP could not use a sentence enhancement to conclude that a
prisoner had not been convicted of a nonviolent offense.”); Rodriguez v. Herrera ,
1999 WL 988534 at *2 (D. Colo. 1999) (“[T]he revised provision runs afoul of
Fristoe by declaring a category of statutorily eligible inmates ‘ineligible’ solely
on the basis of sentencing factors implicated neither by the nature of the
underlying offense nor by the definition of violent crimes set forth at 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(3).”); Todd v. Scibana , 1999 WL 809839 at *5 (E.D. Mich. 1999) (“The
amendments to both 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(1) and P.S. 5162.04 appear to be an
attempt by the BOP to circumvent the line of federal circuit court cases which
hold that the BOP cannot use a sentence enhancement to conclude that a prisoner
has not been convicted of a nonviolent offense.”); Nelson v. Crabtree , 59 F. Supp.
-15-
2d 1081, 1084 (D. Ore. 1999) (“[The Ninth Circuit held] that the operative word
of § 3621(e)(2)(B) is ‘conviction.’ A decision not to allow early release may only
be based on the nature of the conviction; sentencing enhancements . . . are
irrelevant.”); Williams v. Clark , 52 F. Supp. 2d 1145, 1151 (C.D. Calif. 1999)
(“The language of Section 3621(e)(2)(B) has not been amended . . . and it remains
plain and clear; the BOP may not use a sentence enhancement to conclude that a
prisoner has not been convicted of a nonviolent offense.”); Hicks v. Brooks , 28 F.
Supp. 2d 1268, 1272-73 (D. Colo. 1998) (“[T]he BOP again has accomplished
precisely what Fristoe said it may not, i.e., exclude categorically from
consideration for early release upon completion of a drug treatment program those
inmates convicted of a nonviolent offense whose sentence was enhanced for
possession of a weapon and, once again, convert a conviction for a nonviolent
offense into a violent one by considering the sentence enhancement.”); Gavis v.
Crabtree , 28 F. Supp. 2d 1264, 1266 (D. Ore. 1998) (“The inescapable result of
this new program statement is that it reverses governing case law by looking to
the underlying facts to exclude prisoners [with firearms sentencing enhancements]
. . . from early release consideration.”).
We recognize that in reaching this conclusion, we part company with the
Eighth Circuit, which recently held that the new regulation and Program
Statement were valid: “[w]e think that the BOP’s decision to exclude these
-16-
additional categories of inmates from eligibility [i.e. those with sentencing
enhancements because of firearms possession] represent a manifestly permissible
construction of the statute and an appropriate exercise of the BOP’s discretion.”
Bellis v. Davis , 186 F.3d 1092, 1095 (8th Cir. 1999), petitions for cert. filed , ___
U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Dec. 15, 1999) (Nos. 99-7504, 99-7558). The court simply
dismissed as “of no relevance” its prior decision in Martin v. Gerlinski , 133 F.3d
1076 (8th Cir. 1998), which invalidated the earlier regulation and Program
Statement for the same reasons we did in Fristoe . Id. Nonetheless, we join the
Eleventh Circuit and numerous district courts, whose reasoning we find more
persuasive.
Thus, whether we review the current regulation or the current Program
Statement, we conclude that they conflict with the clear language of
§ 3621(e)(2)(B). The regulation is therefore not “based upon a permissible
construction of the statute.” Fristoe , 144 F.3d at 631; see also Martinez , 164 F.3d
at 1259 (noting that we defer to agency’s interpretation of a statute through a
formal regulation only “if it is based on a permissible constructions of the
-17-
statute”). 7
The Program Statement is not “well-reasoned” nor does it have
“‘power to persuade.’” Id.
In reaching this conclusion, we in no way denigrate the BOP’s broad
discretion to determine who among eligible prisoners may receive a sentence
reduction following participation in a substance abuse treatment program. As the
Seventh Circuit has observed, “[c]ommission of a ‘nonviolent offense’ makes a
prisoner eligible for consideration but does not require the Bureau to grant the
boon he seeks. Eligibility is not entitlement.” Bush , 133 F.3d at 457; see also
Samples , 1999 WL 1041815 at *6 (“While early release under § 3621(e)(2)(B) is
open to all prisoners who meet the statutory requirements, the statute vests the
BOP with broad discretion to grant or deny sentence reductions to eligible
prisoners.”); Rodriguez , 1999 WL 988534 at * 3 (noting that “the fact Petitioners
are eligible for consideration for early release under § 3621(e)(2)(B) does not
7
Martinez does not compel us to defer to the new regulation in this case.
Martinez dealt with a different eligibility criterion in 28 C.F.R. § 550.58. It
upheld the validity of the BOP’s exclusion from eligibility of prisoners with a
“prior conviction for homicide, forcible rape, robbery, or aggravated assault.”
Id.; see 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(iv). In distinguishing Fristoe, we noted that this
part of § 550.58 “looks to inmates’ actual criminal convictions and does not
attempt to convert something else, such as a sentencing enhancement, into a
conviction.” Martinez, 164 F.3d at 1260. We also noted that § 550.58, as a
formal regulation, was entitled to “full Chevron deference,” unlike the Program
Statement in Fristoe. Id. at 1261. Even though we upheld one part of § 550.58 in
Martinez, that by no means compels us to uphold a different part of it here, when
we have concluded that the provision challenged in this case is “manifestly
contrary to the statute.” Chevron, 467 U.S. at 844.
-18-
mean they are entitled to early release”); Todd , 1999 WL 809839 at *5 (“While
eligibility for early release under section 3621(e)(2)(B) is open to all prisoners
who meet the statutory requirements, the statute vests the BOP with broad
discretion to grant or deny sentence reductions to eligible prisoners based upon
factors other than the categorical restrictions currently imposed.”). We simply
hold that the BOP may not disregard the statutory eligibility requirements by
categorically excluding from sentence reduction eligibility prisoners convicted of
nonviolent offenses whose sentences were enhanced because of firearms. In
doing so, it has exceeded its statutory authority.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the decisions of the district court
granting petitioners’ habeas relief.
-19-