USCA11 Case: 24-10337 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 1 of 8

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10337 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

THOMAS A. GUERRIERO, Petitioner-Appellant, versus MIAMI RRM, Director,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:23-cv-62252-BB USCA11 Case: 24-10337 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 2 of 8

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10337

____________________

Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Thomas A. Guerriero, a federal prisoner in the custody of Miami Residential Reentry Management (“Miami RRM”) proceed- ing pro se, appeals the district court’s order denying his habeas cor- pus petition. On appeal, he argues that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) improperly refused to apply all of his earned time credits under the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”)1 to his sentence. When reviewing the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, we review questions of law de novo and the district court’s factual findings for clear error. Andrews v. Warden, 958 F.3d 1072, 1076 (11th Cir. 2020). Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 permits district courts to grant habeas relief for petitioners held “in custody in violation of the Constitu- tion or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Challenges to the execution of a federal prisoner’s sentence, such as the deprivation of good time credits or parole determinations, rather than his sentence’s validity may be brought through a peti- tion for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241. McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1089, 1093 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

1 Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). USCA11 Case: 24-10337 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 3 of 8

24-10337 Opinion of the Court 3

The FSA, in relevant part, mandates that the BOP offer in- centives to prisoners who complete certain recidivism reduction programs and other productive activities while in custody. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4). Under the FSA, prisoners who have been de- termined to have a low risk of recidivism are eligible to earn up to 15 days in FSA time credits for every 30 days of successful partici- pation in such programs. Id. § 3632(d)(4)(A); see also 28 C.F.R. § 523.42(c). Section 3632(d)(4)(C) provides that the BOP can apply these FSA time credits to either lengthen an eligible prisoner’s pre- release custody, such as home confinement or half-way house placement, or to advance transfer to supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C). However, under § 3624(g)(3), “the Director of the [BOP] may transfer [a] prisoner to begin any term of supervised release at an earlier date, not to exceed 12 months, based on the appli- cation of [FSA] time credits under section 3632.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(3) (emphasis added); see also 28 C.F.R. § 523.44(d)(3) (“The [BOP] may apply FSA Time Credits toward early transfer to supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g) only when . . . [t]he application of FSA Time Credits would result in transfer to super- vised release no earlier than 12 months before the date that transfer . . . would have otherwise occurred.”) (emphasis added). Further, § 3632(d)(4)(C) does not permit the BOP to apply a prisoner’s FSA time credits to his period of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C). USCA11 Case: 24-10337 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 4 of 8

4 Opinion of the Court 24-10337

Here, the district court correctly found that the BOP had al- ready applied the maximum 12 months’ worth of earned time cred- its allowed by the FSA to begin Guerriero’s term of supervised re- lease. On appeal, Guerriero relies heavily on subsection (g)(10), which states “[t]he time limits under subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to prerelease custody under this subsection.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(10). Contrary to Guerriero’s assertions, that subsection of the FSA is irrelevant to him, because subsections (b) and (c) of the same are irrelevant to him. Subsection (b) governs good time credit, and subsection (c) generally authorizes prerelease programs, such as reentry. See generally 18 U.S.C. §§ 3624(b), (c). Guerriero is not subject to either of those subsections, or their “time limits,” so § 3624(g)(10) is irrelevant in this case. Further, Guerriero acknowledges that 365 days of FSA time credits have already been applied towards his sentence. The FSA’s plain language does not entitle him to claim more than that. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(3). Guerriero also asserts that any additional outstanding time credits (over and above the 12 months which can be, and have al- ready been, allowed to accelerate the beginning of Guerriero’s term of supervised release) should be applied to reduce his three- year term of supervised release. Guerriero relies upon the first sen- tence of § 3632(d)(4)(C), which provides: Time credits earned under this paragraph by prison- ers who successfully participate in recidivism reduc- tion programs or productive activities shall be applied USCA11 Case: 24-10337 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 5 of 8

24-10337 Opinion of the Court 5

toward time in prerelease custody or supervised re- lease. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C)(first sentence). It is not clear from that sentence, read in isolation, whether the time credits are to be used to reduce incarceration time so as to accelerate the beginning of prerelease custody or supervised release, on the one hand, or, on the other hand, are to be used to reduce the actual time imposed by the original sentence of supervised release (in Guerriero’s case his three-year supervised release sentence). However, the next sen- tence of § 3632(d)(4)(C) points to the former as the meaning of Congress. It instructs the Bureau of Prisons how to implement the application of the time credits provided for in the first sentence. That second sentence provides: The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall transfer eligible prisoners, as determined under section 3624(g), into prerelease custody or supervised release. Id. (second sentence). In other words, the second sentence clearly indicates that Congress meant that the time credits are to be used to reduce incarceration time so as to accelerate the beginning of prerelease custody or supervised release, or, as the second sentence of § 3632(d)(4)(C) says: “transfer eligible prisoners . . . into prelease custody or supervised release.” This meaning is also suggested by the title of § 3632(d)(4)(C): “Application of time credits toward pre- release custody or supervised release.” 2 The “[u]se of the word

2 Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110, 120–21 (2023)(“This Court has long con-

sidered that the title of a statute and the heading of a section are tools available USCA11 Case: 24-10337 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 6 of 8

6 Opinion of the Court 24-10337

‘toward’ means that credits can be applied to bring ‘time in prere- lease custody or supervised release’ closer to occurring because credits applied ‘toward’ something generally means to bring that something closer to happening.” United States v. Calabrese, 2023 WL 1969753, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 13, 2023)(quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“defining ‘toward,’ in relevant part, as ‘in the direction of; on a course or line leading to (some place or something)’”)). This meaning is also indicated by § 3624(g), the provision to which the second sentence of § 3632(d)(4)(C) looked with respect to the implementation of the time credits. Section § 3624(g)(3) provides: Supervised release.--If the sentencing court included as a part of the prisoner's sentence a requirement that the prisoner be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment pursuant to section 3583, the Di- rector of the Bureau of Prisons may transfer the pris- oner to begin any such term of supervised release at an earlier date, not to exceed 12 months, based on the application of time credits under section 3632. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(g)(3). Thus, considering the entirety of the rele- vant statutory language, we conclude that Congress intended the

for the resolution of a doubt about the meaning of a statute.”)(internal quota- tions and citations omitted). USCA11 Case: 24-10337 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 7 of 8

24-10337 Opinion of the Court 7

time credits to be used to reduce incarceration time so as to accel- erate the beginning of prerelease custody or supervised release. As is apparent from the overall statutory language, the obvi- ous purpose of Congress—in providing for these time credits—was to provide an incentive for prisoners to attend the recidivism re- duction programs Congress was devising, and the obvious incen- tive was that the time credits would reduce a prisoner’s incarcera- tion time—not that the credits would reduce the post-incarceration supervised release. The regulations also reflect this obvious con- gressional purpose. See 28 C.F.R. § 523.44 (“Application of FSA Time Credits”). Section 523.44(b) provides, in relevant part: [T]he Bureau may apply FSA Time Credits toward prerelease custody or early transfer to supervised re- lease under 18 U.S.C. 3624(g) only if an eligible in- mate has: (1) Earned FSA Time Credits in an amount that is equal to the remainder of the inmate’s imposed term of imprisonment; Id. § 523.44(b) (emphasis added). For the reasons set out above, we readily conclude that § 3632(d)(4)(C) means that the FSA time credits are to be used to re- duce incarceration time so as to accelerate the beginning of the su- pervised release time that was imposed at sentencing on the pris- oner. Accordingly, we reject Guerriero’s attempt to have his excess time credits applied to reduce his three-year supervised release term. Every case to address this issue has agreed with the USCA11 Case: 24-10337 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 8 of 8

8 Opinion of the Court 24-10337

interpretation set out above, save only one: Dyer v. Fulgam, 2022 WL 1598249, at *1 (E.D. Tenn. May 20, 2022), appeal dismissed as moot, Dyer v. Fulgam, No. 22-5608 (6th Cir. June 6, 2023). See, e.g., Singleton v. Neely, 2023 WL 9550049 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 21, 2023), re- port and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 476949 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 7, 2024); Williams v. Fitch, 2024 WL 737803 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 31, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 734477 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 22, 2024); Alexander v. Joseph, 2023 WL 6798866 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 12, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 6794979 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2023); Harrison v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 2022 WL 17093441 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2022)). For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.