F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
February 7, 2007
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
AR NO LD SATTERW HITE,
Petitioner-A ppellant, No. 06-1385
v. D. Colorado
HECTOR RIOS (W arden), (D.C. No. 06-CV-1250-ZLW )
Respondent-Appellee.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before M U RPH Y, SE YM OU R, and M cCO NNELL, Circuit Judges.
After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G ).
The court therefore orders the case submitted without oral argument.
Arnold Satterwhite, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of
the habeas corpus petition he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Satterwhite has
provided documentation he has been approved to participate in the Bureau of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
Prisons’ (“BOP”) Residential Drug and Alcohol Program (“RDAP”) but was
advised he is ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) even
if he successfully completed the program. Satterw hite challenges the BOP’s
determination. Exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the
district court’s denial of relief.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e), the BOP has discretion to reduce a federal
inmate’s sentence up to one year upon the successful completion of an RDAP.
Section 3621(e)(2)(B) denies the sentence reduction to inmates convicted of
violent offenses. In addition, the BOP has promulgated a regulation categorically
denying the sentence reduction to inmates whose current offense is a felony
involving, inter alia, the “carrying, possession, or use of a firearm or other
dangerous weapon.” 28 C.F.R. § 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(B). This regulation was
upheld by the Supreme Court in Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 244 (2001).
Satterwhite pleaded guilty to a charge of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Satterwhite argues
he is eligible for the § 3621(e) sentence reduction because (1) his conviction is
nonviolent and (2) his offense conduct did not involve the use or possession of a
firearm during the commission of a separate felony, and thus Lopez does not
apply. Accordingly, he asserts the BOP’s categorical denial of the sentence
reduction was error.
-2-
In M artin v. Rios, this court considered and rejected the argument
Satterw hite now presents. 472 F.3d 1206, 1207 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[Petitioner]
misreads Lopez insofar as he claims that it does not apply when [his] offense
involved mere possession of a firearm.”). Consequently, we affirm the denial of
Satterwhite’s § 2241 petition. Satterwhite’s motion to proceed in form a pauperis
on appeal is denied.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
M ichael R. M urphy
Circuit Judge
-3-