Daniel James Abbott v. Eric Rardin

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Daniel James Abbott’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ denial of First Step Act earned time credits and placement in a residential reentry center or home confinement. The court held that Abbott was ineligible for First Step Act credits because his aggregate sentence included a disqualifying conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and that Second Chance Act placement decisions are discretionary with the Bureau of Prisons. The court also denied Abbott’s pending motions and dismissed the petition with prejudice.

Holdings

1. A prisoner serving an aggregate federal sentence that includes a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is categorically ineligible for First Step Act earned-time credits under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(xxii).
2. Abbott could not receive First Step Act credits against the consecutive drug sentence because multiple consecutive terms are treated for administrative purposes as a single aggregate term of imprisonment.
3. The court did not need to defer to the BOP's statutory interpretation, so Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo did not affect the result.
4. The Second Chance Act does not entitle a federal prisoner to a minimum period of RRC placement or to immediate home confinement.
5. The court denied Abbott's motion concerning the statutory characterization of his petition because the court had already treated the petition as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Abbott was eligible for First Step Act earned-time credits despite serving an aggregate sentence that included a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
2. Whether Abbott was entitled to receive First Step Act credits against only his consecutive 20-month drug sentence.
3. Whether the Second Chance Act entitled Abbott to residential reentry center placement or immediate home confinement.
4. Whether Abbott's motions concerning the statutory characterization of his petition and amendment of the respondent's name should be granted.

Disposition

dismissed