Betancourt v. Bur Prisons

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit

10-31-2005

Betancourt v. Bur Prisons
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-2150

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

Recommended Citation
"Betancourt v. Bur Prisons" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 304.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/304

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
APS-5 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-2150
________________

FRANCISCO J. BETANCOURT,
Appellant
v.

BUREAU OF PRISONS
____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00045)
District Judge: Honorable Garrett E. Brown, Jr.
_______________________________________

Submitted For a Determination of Whether a Certificate of Appealability is Necessary,
and for Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
October 6, 2005

Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: October 31, 2005)

_______________________

OPINION
_______________________

PER CURIAM

Francisco J. Betancourt appeals from an order of the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey, denying his petition for habeas corpus. In his petition,

Betancourt argued that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was miscalculating his “good time
credits” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). Betancourt argued that the BOP incorrectly

based its calculations on the number of days actually served rather than the length of the

sentence imposed.

We recently addressed the identical arguments in O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172

(3d Cir. 2005). We concluded, as did the District Court here, that the BOP’s

interpretation of the statute, which utilizes a formula based on the time actually served, is

reasonable. We therefore will affirm the District Court’s order.1

1
To the extent a certificate of appealability is necessary, it is hereby denied.