USCA1 Opinion

       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 99-1586



                           SEAN MURPHY,



                           Petitioner,



                                v.



          KATHLEEN M. HAWK, BUREAU OF PRISONS DIRECTOR,



                           Respondent.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



          [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                     Torruella, Chief Judge,

                Stahl and Lipez, Circuit Judges.

                                

                                

                                

                                

                                

     Sean Murphy on brief pro se.

     Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and James F. Lang,

Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for respondent.











January 18, 2000







                                

                                







            Per Curiam.  Pro se petitioner Sean Murphy appeals a

  district court judgment that denied his 28 U.S.C.  2241

  petition for a writ of habeas corpus to compel the Bureau of

  Prisons (BOP) to reduce his federal sentence.  This appeal asks

  us to determine whether the BOP must consider a prisoner who

  served most of his federal prison term at a state correctional

  facility where he successfully completed a state drug abuse

  treatment program eligible for a sentence reduction under 18

  U.S.C.  3621(e)(2)(B). 

            Applying de novo review, see, e.g., Martinez v.

  Flowers, 164 F.3d 1257, 1258 (10th Cir. 1998), we conclude that

  the district court properly denied the petitioner relief on the

  ground that the BOP has permissibly maintained that the

  petitioner is not eligible for early release because he did not

  complete a "Bureau of Prisons residential drug abuse treatment

  program."  See 28 C.F.R. 550.58(a)(3)(1997).  Viewing this

  regulation in the light of the statute as a whole and its

  legislative history, we think that the BOP's position

  constitutes a reasonable and permissible construction of the

  statute.  We have no occasion to apply the rule of lenity.  We

  also decline to consider the petitioner's equal protection

  argument since it was not raised below.  The remaining cases

  that the petitioner cites in support of his claim do not

  address the issue presented here.  Consequently, they have no

  bearing on this case.  

            In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the

  district court is affirmed.  See Local Rule 27(c).