Dexter v. Federal Bureau Prsns
Dexter v. Federal Bureau Prsns
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6873
FREDERICK JAMES DEXTER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-97-99-1)
Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick James Dexter, Appellant Pro Se. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:
Frederick James Dexter appeals from a district court order
denying relief on his petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2241(1994).
Dexter asserts that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) erred in finding
him ineligible for a sentence reduction under
18 U.S.C.A. § 3621(e)(2) (West Supp. 1998). The BOP found that Dexter’s offense
was not considered a “nonviolent offense” because he had received
a two-level enhancement under U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL
§ 2D1.1(b)(1) (1992), for possessing a firearm during a drug traf-
ficking crime.
While Dexter’s appeal was pending, however, the BOP revised
its definition of “nonviolent offense,” explicitly including pos-
session of a firearm in its determination of disqualifying of-
fenses. See
28 C.F.R. § 550.58(1997). Accordingly, Dexter’s case
is governed by our recent decision in Pelissero v. Thompson, ___
F.3d ___,
1998 WL 559663(4th Cir. Sept. 3, 1998) (Nos. 97-6156,
97-6221) (holding that revised § 550.58 applies to cases pending on
the date of enactment and is a valid exercise of the BOP’s discre-
tion under § 3621(e)). We therefore affirm the district court’s
denial of relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished