Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

11-9-2005

James v. Nash Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-1864

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

Recommended Citation "James v. Nash" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 243. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/243

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. APS-13 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-1864 ________________

ELMER JAMES, JR., Appellant v.

WARDEN JOHN NASH ____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court For the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civ. No. 05-CV-00498) District Judge: Honorable Freda L. Wolfson _______________________________________

Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 14, 2005

Before: SLOVITER, MCKEE AND FISHER, Circuit Judges.

(Filed November 9, 2005 )

_______________________

OPINION _______________________

PER CURIAM

Elmer James, Jr. appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey, denying his petition for habeas corpus. In his petition, James

argued that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was miscalculating his “good time credits” pursuant to

(b). James argued that the BOP incorrectly based its

calculations on the number of days actually served rather than the length of the sentence

imposed.

We recently addressed the identical arguments in O’Donald v. Johns,

(3d Cir. 2005). We concluded, as did the District Court here, that the BOP’s

interpretation of the statute, which utilizes a formula based on the time actually served, is

reasonable. We therefore will affirm the District Court’s order.

2 3