[UNPUBLISHED]

Federal inmate Kamal K. Patel appeals from the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged the method by which the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) calculated his good-conduct time under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). We reject Patel’s arguments. See Bernitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868, 869 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (§ 3624(b) is ambiguous and BOP’s calculation of good-conduct time, based on time actually served, is reasonable interpretation of § 3624(b); court will not resort to rule of lenity when ambiguity of statute can be otherwise resolved); Perez-Olivo v. Chavez, 394 F.3d 45, 47, 52 n. 6 (1st Cir. 2005) (BOP’s time-served interpretation, embodied in 28 C.F.R. § 523.20, was adopted pursuant to notice-and-comment procedure and is entitled to deference).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and deny as moot Patel’s motion to transfer.