UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION
October 14, 2010
EDWARD DUANE POINTER, PETITIONER,
RICARDO RIOS, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy McDADE United States Senior District Judge
OPINION & ORDER
Petitioner, Edward Duane Pointer, is before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Memorandum in Support, filed on March 5, 2010. (Docs. 1 & 2). On June 4, 2010, Respondent filed his Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 7). Petitioner filed a Reply on June 16, 2010. (Doc. 8).
On February 22, 1993, Petitioner was convicted of bank robbery (Count One) and the use of a firearm during a crime of violence (Count Two). (Doc. 2 at 1-2). On June 2, 1993, the District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin sentenced him to 232 months in prison on Count One and an additional 60 months on Count Two. (Doc. 2 at 2). The sentences were to run consecutively. (Doc. 2 at 2). Based upon the Good Conduct Time ("GCT") credits Petitioner has already earned, those he is projected to earn,*fn1 and a 211 day credit afforded him for time already served, the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has projected that he will have a release date of March 5, 2014. (Doc. 7 at 2).
Petitioner argues that the BOP has improperly administered his sentences resulting in an erroneous projected release date. (Doc. 2 at 1). Specifically, Petitioner takes issue with the manner in which the BOP has calculated his GCT credits. (Doc. 2 at 2-4). The BOP aggregates consecutive sentences and treats them as one when it determines GCT credits. (Doc. 7 at 15). Petitioner argues that this is incorrect and that the BOP is required to separate the sentences and apply the GCT calculation to each individually. (Doc. 2 at 2-4). According to Petitioner, "any good conduct time for both sentences must be calculated individually as the sentences, per statute, were imposed individually." (Doc. 2 at 2).*fn2
Section 3584(c) of Chapter 18 of the United States Code provides that "[m]ultiple terms of imprisonment ordered to run consecutively . . . shall be treated for administrative purposes as a single, aggregate term of imprisonment."*fn3
Further, the Supreme Court has recognized that "the Attorney General, through the BOP, has the responsibility for administering the sentence." United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992). Part of such administration includes approving "good time regulations" and calculating GCT credits. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). Therefore, the BOP has the authority to administer GCT credits, and in performing this administrative function it is directed by statute to treat consecutive sentences as a single, aggregate term. Accordingly, the BOP is correct in its method of calculating Petitioner's projected release date. Moreover, even though the BOP is correct in aggregating Petitioner's sentences, Respondent has also demonstrated that even if it were to treat Petitioner's two sentences as separate terms of imprisonment, Petitioner's projected release date would remain March 5, 2014. (Doc. 7 at 15-16).*fn4
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the BOP's method of calculating Petitioner's release date is proper. Accordingly, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Entered this 14th day of October, 2010.