Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d 970

Congress required BOP to provide RDAP and located priority based on proximity to release date.
§ 3621(e)(1) and (e)(2) authorize RDAP and discretionary one-year early release for nonviolent offenders.
Questions arose whether BOP should include projected § 3621(e) release dates when ranking RDAP wait-list proximity.
Historically BOP varied in incorporating early-release potential into proximity; current policy excludes it.
Oregon district court Thurman held that wait-list proximity must account for § 3621(e) early release date; district court later disagreed.
Close and others challenged BOP’s RDAP wait-list ranking under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing statutory interpretation favors including early release.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 3621(e)(1)(C) require considering early release in RDAP proximity?	Close: must include projected § 3621(e) release date.	Thomas: plain language does not require inclusion of early release.	Statute unambiguous; no requirement to include early release.
Is the definition of 'release date' controlled by § 3624(a) for § 3621(e)(1)(C)?	Close: § 3624(a) defines release date to reflect early release.	Thomas: release date aligns with term expiration, not early release timing.	Yes; § 3624(a) defines 'date of release' for proximity calculations; not equated with earliest potential release.

Greenwood v. CompuCredit Corp., 615 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2010) (plain-language interpretation controls when unambiguous)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (framework for agency statutory interpretation)
Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2011) (jurisdictional limits on review of individualized RDAP determinations)
United States v. Novak, 476 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc discussion on interpretive approach to similar statutes)
High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2004) (discusses deference standards when statute ambiguous)