Darren Bottinelli v. Josias Salazar, 929 F.3d 1196

Background

Petitioners are eight federal prisoners who sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to force immediate recalculation of "good time" credits under the First Step Act of 2018.
Pre-First Step Act, BOP calculated statutory "up to 54 days" per year as 47 days (approved by Barber v. Thomas and prior decisions).
First Step Act § 102(b)(1) amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) to permit up to 54 days/year and added § 3624(g) tied to a new "risk and needs assessment system" created by § 101(a).
§ 102(b)(2) (Effective Date) provides that the amendments "shall take effect beginning on the date that the Attorney General completes and releases the risk and needs assessment system," and § 101(a) required that system within 210 days of enactment (no later than July 19, 2019).
Petitioners argued the 54-day amendment took effect on enactment (Dec. 21, 2018) and sought immediate recalculation; BOP and district court held the amendment was delayed until the assessment system was completed.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the statutory text unambiguously ties the § 3624(b) amendment’s effective date to establishment of the assessment system and rejecting statutory, drafting-error, and equal-protection challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the First Step Act’s amendment to § 3624(b) (good-time credit) take effect?	Amendment effective on enactment (Dec. 21, 2018); immediate recalculation required.	Effective only when Attorney General completes/releases the risk-and-needs assessment system (per § 102(b)(2)), no earlier than July 19, 2019.	Held: Effective upon completion/release of the assessment system; not immediately upon enactment.
Whether "this subsection" in § 102(b)(2) applies to both amendments in § 102(b)(1) or only to § 3624(g)	"This subsection" should be read narrowly to apply only to § 3624(g), so good-time change is immediate.	"This subsection" refers to the amendments in the plural and thus applies to both § 3624(b) change and addition of § 3624(g).	Held: "This subsection" unambiguously covers both amendments; delay applies to the good-time change.
Whether the delay is a drafting error that courts should correct	Court should fix drafting oversight and give immediate effect to 54-day calculation.	No textual or contextual basis to presume a drafting error; courts should not rewrite clear statutory language.	Held: No basis to presume or correct a drafting error; court enforces enacted text.
Whether the delayed effective date violates Equal Protection (overserving some prisoners)	Delay irrationally deprives inmates with release dates between enactment and implementation of 54-day benefit.	Delay is rationally related to legitimate government interest in giving BOP time to implement administrative changes and manage releases.	Held: Rational-basis review satisfied; delay does not violate Equal Protection.

Key Cases Cited

Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (discussing BOP’s historical 47-day calculation of § 3624(b))
Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395 (general rule that statutes take effect at enactment absent clear direction otherwise)
Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (courts should not rescue Congress from drafting errors)
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U.S. 618 (distinguishing filling silence from rewriting explicit provisions)
McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263 (deference to legislative classifications under rational-basis review)
United States v. Navarro, 800 F.3d 1104 (rejecting similar equal-protection challenge to delayed implementation and recognizing legitimate administrative interests)
Padilla-Diaz v. United States, 862 F.3d 856 (rational-basis standard and recognition that statutes may produce unequal results yet survive review)
ABKCO Music, Inc. v. LaVere, 217 F.3d 684 (distinguishing clarifying vs. substantive amendments)
Beaver v. Tarsadia Hotels, 816 F.3d 1170 (amendment that changes substance cannot be treated as clarifying for retroactivity purposes)