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Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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APS-5 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.
2