Terrence Brown v. Cheron Nash

Case: 16-50129 Document: 00513896290 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fif h Circuit

FILED
No. 16-50129 March 3, 2017
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
TERRENCE M. BROWN, and on behalf of All Federal Inmates Similarly
Situated,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

CHERON NASH, Warden, Federal Correctional Institute Bastrop;
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondents - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:15-CV-689

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Proceeding pro se on appeal, Terrence M. Brown, federal prisoner
# 08524-031, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition on behalf of himself and
similarly-situated federal prisoners challenging the method adopted by the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for calculating good-time credit under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624(b). Brown does not claim he is eligible for immediate release.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir.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.
 Case: 16-50129 Document: 00513896290 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2017

No. 16-50129

Where the prisoner does not make that claim, we lack subject-matter
jurisdiction over the appeal of § 2241 petitions challenging the BOP’s
calculation of good-time credit under § 3624(b). Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d
310, 311–12 (5th Cir. 2005). In Sample, our court ruled the petition was not
ripe because the prisoner had not established he would sustain immediate
injury that could be redressed by the relief requested. Id. at 312.
Brown requests the same relief as the petitioner in Sample. Whether
Brown’s projected release date is computed by the BOP’s interpretation or his
own, he is not yet entitled to release. Thus, like the petitioner in Sample,
Brown’s petition is not ripe for review and the instant appeal is dismissed for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See id.
DISMISSED.

2