dissenting:
I. HALFWAY HOUSE
I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Dawson is not entitled to sentence credit for his 104-day stay at the halfway house. The Bureau of Prisons’ refusal to credit Dawson’s sentence for that period of confinement violated 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)(1) and denied Dawson equal protection. In my view, Judge Heaney’s dissent in Moreland v. U.S., 968 F.2d 655, 663-67 (8th Cir.) (Heaney, J., dissenting), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 675, 121 L.Ed.2d 598 (1992), provides the proper analytical framework for resolution of this issue.
A. “Official Detention"
As it appears in 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), the phrase “official detention” is not ambiguous. Moreland, 968 F.2d at 664 (Heaney, J., dissenting). Dawson’s confinement at the halfway house clearly was “official.” He resided there pursuant to a court order requiring him to do so. That the operative order was a “release” order is largely a matter of semantics. Further, regardless of the word or phrase used to describe Dawson’s stay at the halfway house, it cannot seriously be disputed that he was functionally “detained.” Since “official detention” is unambiguous, the Bureau of Prisons’ interpretation of the phrase is not entitled to any particular deference.
Whether Dawson is entitled to sentence credit under § 3585(b)(1) depends on the degree of confinement or restraint imposed on him during his stay at the halfway house. Id. at 664 (Heaney, J., dissenting). “[A] defendant subject to conditions as restrictive as incarceration may receive sentence credit.” Id. at 664 (Heaney, J., dissenting).
The record reflects that Dawson was subject to the same conditions of confinement as postsentence inmates residing at the halfway house. Dawson was completely confined for 12 hours during each 24-hour period, from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. His presence was monitored by nightly bed checks and counts. If he left the facility, he was required to punch a time card and to provide the address and phone number of his destination. While away from the facility, Dawson was required to check in every three hours. While on the premises, he was prohibited from using alcohol, from engaging in sexual activity, and from entering other residents’ rooms. He could only use the telephone for 15 minutes at a time. He was required to provide random urinalysis samples and was subject to “on demand” searches of his person and property. He also was required to attend on-premises meetings. The facility placed limitations on his clothing and personal appliances. He could only receive “pre-approved” visitors, and all visits were required to take place in a “visiting room.”
Residents were assigned work or maintenance duties. Those who did not have outside employment, such as Dawson, were required to seek employment daily and to submit a list of prospective employers contacted pursuant to that requirement. The facility deducted 25% of the gross weekly earnings of residents who were employed.
If Dawson violated facility rules, he was subject to Bureau of Prisons — type administrative punishment. Unauthorized absences were punishable by loss of privileges, revocation of bond or criminal sanctions.
The record thus demonstrates that Dawson was constantly and closely supervised during his stay at the halfway house, and was physically incarcerated for at least 12 hours each day. These particular circumstances constituted “official detention”, within the plain and ordinary meaning of that phrase. Any other interpretation is “unreasonable and contrary to the considerations of fairness that inspired Congress’ decision to provide credit for time served.” Moreland, 968 F.2d at 665 (Heaney, J., dissenting) (citing Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 536 (9th Cir.1990)).
B. Equal Protection
Presentence detainees, such as Dawson, and postsentence detainees were subject to the same rules, restrictions and conditions of *897confinement while at the halfway house. Under the majority’s analysis, Dawson will not receive sentence credit, even though identically-treated postsentence detainees did.
In my view, presentence and postsentence detainees at this particular halfway house were similarly situated for equal protection purposes. Rather than comparing the legal custody “status” of each group, a court should focus on the comparative degree of confinement of the two groups.
In the section of his brief devoted to the equal protection issue, Appellee Scott has not articulated a rational reason for this disparate treatment. I find none. In the words of Judge Heaney,
I do not see how a delineation of the paths by which people become residents or a recitation of official goals and reasons leading to their residential status can adequately serve as a rational basis for differing treatment. Nobody would contend that the Bureau of Prisons could justify a denial of sentence credit to presentence detainees in county jails because their legal status differed from postsentence defendants. Under the statute, the degree of confinement is what is at issue, and the restraints on [the appellant’s] liberty at the [halfway house] were the same as those who were concluding a sentence there. Moreover, ... the restrictions on [the appellant’s] liberty were among the most severe that could have been imposed as a condition of pretrial release.
Moreland, 968 F.2d at 666-67 (Heaney, J., dissenting).
Denying Dawson sentence credit for his halfway house stay ignores the reality of his confinement and elevates form over substance.
II. SAFE HOUSE
I also dissent from the majority’s determination that Dawson should not receive sentence credit for his stay in the safe house, and the reasons underpinning that conclusion. Again, the pertinent issue is whether the conditions at the safe house were as restrictive as incarceration. In my view, that question cannot be resolved on the present record.
In the proceedings below, Dawson detailed the conditions of his confinement at the halfway house. He was not nearly as specific about conditions at the safe house. However, Dawson filed at least three documents in the district court suggesting that the conditions at the safe house were the same as those at the halfway house.
The first document is one Dawson originally submitted to the BOP in connection with the BOP’s administrative remedy process. Therein, Dawson indicated that when he was transferred from the halfway house to the safe house, “[t]he conditions of my restrictions were continued by the court at the ‘safe house.’ ” R. 12, Exhibit “Al” (Request for Administrative Remedy, attached to Petitioner’s Affidavit in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgement [sic]).
The second document is also one Dawson originally filed during the BOP administrative review process. In this document, Dawson stated that a pretrial services representative told him that he would continue to be under the same restrictions as imposed on him at the halfway house. R. 12, Exhibit “A4” (Attachment 1 to Request for Administrative Remedy) at para. 7.
Finally, Dawson filed an affidavit in which his criminal defense counsel stated that “[a]f-ter discussions with Pretrial Services, I informed my client that he would still be subject to all of the conditions of custody that were imposed upon him at [the halfway house].” R. 13, Exhibit “E23” (Affidavit of Charles H. Reid, Esq., attached to Petitioner’s Opposition to Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgement [sic] and Cross — Motion for Partial Summary Judgement [sic]) at para. 9.
These submissions suggest that the conditions actually imposed on Dawson at the safe house may have been as restrictive as incarceration. However, the record on this point is not nearly as clear as with respect to the degree of confinement at the halfway house. Accordingly, I would remand with directions to the district court to make findings concerning the conditions of confinement Daw*898son actually experienced at the safe house, and to determine whether those conditions were as restrictive as incarceration.