United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
October 24, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
_________________________ Clerk
No. 03-40468
SUMMARY CALENDAR
_________________________
CURTIS L. PEOPLES
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
Respondent - Appellee
______________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas
(1:00-CV-100)
______________________________________________________________________________
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge:1
In this appeal we review the district court's decision to dismiss Petitioner-Appellant, Curtis
Peoples’ (hereinafter “Peoples”), 28 U.S.C. § 2441 petition. For the following reasons, we affirm
the district court’s decision.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R.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.
-1-
Peoples is currently serving sentences imposed under the District of Columbia Code and
the United States Code for a term of 30 years and 4 months to life. Peoples alleges that the
Federal Bureau of Prisons miscalculated his good time credits, industrial work assignment credits,
and educational credits which would adjust his parole eligibility date. Peoples pursued the proper
administrative remedies and then filed suit in the district court. The district court denied Peoples’
petition and this appeal timely followed.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court reviews the district court’s determinations of law regarding People’s § 2241
petition de novo. Royal v. Tombone, 141 F.3d 596, 599 (5th Cir. 1998). We review the district
court’s findings of fact for clear error. Id.
III.
LIBERTY INTEREST IN PAROLE ELIGIBILITY DATE
Habeas relief is available for rights secured under the laws of the United States. Malchi v.
Thaleri, 211 F.3d 953, 957 (5th Cir. 2000). Convicted persons have no constitutional right to be
conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence. Greenholtz v. Inmates of
Nebraska Penal and Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979).
We also look to the statues of the District of Columbia to determine whether a prisoner
has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in being released on parole, and therefore, whether
he has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the determination of his parole eligibility date.
Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 373-74 (1987). The District of Columbia statutory
scheme does not create an expectancy of release that rises to the level of a constitutionally
-2-
protected liberty interest. Ellis v. District of Columbia, 84 F.3d 1413, 1415 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Thus, Peoples has no liberty interest in his parole eligibility date and habeas relief is not
warranted. Malachi, 211 F.3d at 957.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
-3-