[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 15, 2012
No. 11-13721
Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00387-HLM
DAVID A. SAWYERS,
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, USP ATLANTA,
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 15, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
David Sawyers, a District of Columbia Code offender serving an aggregated
23-years to life sentence in a Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) facility, appeals pro se
the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 He argues that the district court failed to properly credit him
with 154 days of District of Columbia Educational Good Time (“DCEGT”) he
earned while incarcerated in the District of Columbia’s Department of Corrections.
(“DCDC”). He maintains that, when he was transferred to the BOP’s custody, his
sentence was recalculated and the 154-day credit that he previously had been
awarded while in DCDC custody was deducted. The BOP deducted it on the
ground that he failed to submit documentation verifying the award of DCEGT.
The BOP was wrong, he says, because it overlooked the fact that he provided it
with an official “Face Sheet,” which documents the award.
An inmate may challenge with a § 2241 petition the BOP’s interpretation or
administration of credits such as those involved in this case. See, e.g., Byrd v.
Hasty, 142 F.3d 1395, 1397 (11th Cir. 1998) (addressing inmate’s § 2241 petition
1
In deciding Sawyer’s appeal, we review de novo the district court’s dismissal of
Sawyers’s petition. Skinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293, 1294 (11th Cir. 2004).
2
challenging the BOP’s denial of his request to participate in a drug abuse
treatment program). Under the National Capitalization Revitalization and
Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the “Revitalization Act”), Pub. L.
No. 105-33, § 11231(a)(1), 111 Stat. 251, 734 (1997), the custody of inmates, like
Sawyers, incarcerated under the D.C. Code was transferred to the BOP. D.C.
Code § 24-101(a). Section 24-221.01(a) of the D.C. Code provides that
Every person whose conduct complies with institutional rules and
who demonstrates a desire for self-improvement by successfully
participating in an academic or vocational program, including special
education and Graduate Equivalency Diploma programs, shall earn
educational good time credits of no less than 3 days a month and not
more than 5 days a month.
D.C. Code § 24-221.01(a).
An inmate whose offense conduct occurred between April 11, 1987, and
August 5, 2000, is entitled to earn DCEGT. BOP PS ¶ 12.2(e). “For D.C. Code
offenders transferred to the BOP, educational good time credits are noted in the
‘Conduct Credits’ section of the DCDC Face Sheet. Id. ¶ 12.2(i). Under BOP
policy, however, DCEGT credits are not to be awarded “until the D.C. Educational
Good Time form is received from the Supervisor of Education.” Id. ¶ 12.2(n).
Sawyers, as a § 2241 petitioner, in claiming entitlement to 154 days of
DCEGT earned while incarcerated in the DCDC, had the burden of proving that
3
the BOP had received the D.C. Educational Good Time form from the Supervisor
of Education and, having received it, incorrectly calculated his parole eligibility
date. Sawyers failed to prove this, however, as the district court properly found.
And because he failed to satisfy his burden of proof, he was not entitled to § 2241
relief.
AFFIRMED.
4