Graves v. Andrews, 5:19-hc-02053

Petitioner Shedrick Owen Graves is a federal inmate at FCI Butner serving 36 months after revocation of supervised release and proceeds pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Graves raised five main claims: (1) BOP miscalculated good conduct time under the First Step Act; (2) First Step Act entitles her to six months’ home confinement; (3) sentencing court should have reduced her sentence under Amendment 782; (4) supervised release revocation violated due process; and (5) predicate convictions used to enhance her sentence were invalid.
At filing, the Attorney General had not completed the First Step Act risk-and-needs assessment, so the § 3624(b) amendment increasing good-conduct credit was not yet effective; Graves alleged no later miscalculation.
The First Step Act’s home-confinement provision directs the BOP to use its authority “to the extent practicable,” but does not create an absolute entitlement to six months’ home confinement.
Challenges to the validity of a conviction or sentence generally must proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 unless that remedy is inadequate or ineffective; Graves did not allege the narrow circumstances that would make § 2255 inadequate.
The court dismissed the § 2241 petition without prejudice, denied a certificate of appealability, and directed closure of the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BOP miscalculated good-conduct time under the First Step Act	Graves says BOP failed to apply § 3624(b)’s increased 54 days/year credit	BOP (and court) note the § 3624(b) amendment was not effective until the risk/needs assessment was completed	Dismissed as premature—amendment not in effect at filing and no later miscalculation alleged
Whether First Step Act requires 6 months home confinement	Graves contends Act mandates last 6 months be served in home confinement	BOP/court: statute uses “to the extent practicable” and grants discretionary authority, not an absolute right	Denied—statute does not require BOP to place inmates on home confinement for six months
Whether sentencing court should have reduced sentence under Amendment 782 / § 3582(c)	Graves seeks judicial reduction under Amendment 782	Respondent/court: relief from sentencing court’s § 3582(c) ruling is obtained by appeal or direct motion to that court, not in § 2241 habeas	Not reviewable in § 2241; must appeal the sentencing court’s § 3582(c) decision
Whether revocation proceedings violated due process / predicate convictions invalid	Graves asserts constitutional defects in revocation and sentence enhancement	Respondent/court: these are attacks on conviction/sentence that must be raised under § 2255 unless § 2255 is inadequate	Dismissed in § 2241 because Graves did not allege the narrow circumstances making § 2255 inadequate

In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192 (4th Cir.) (procedural rule that attacks on execution of federal sentence are normally brought in § 2241)
In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774 (4th Cir.) (distinguishing execution-of-sentence claims from challenges to conviction/sentence)
In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328 (4th Cir.) (circumstances when § 2255 is inadequate to challenge a conviction)
United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415 (4th Cir.) (standards for when § 2255 is inadequate to challenge a sentence)
Timms v. Johns, 627 F.3d 525 (4th Cir.) (exhaustion of BOP administrative remedies for transfer/placement claims)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S.) (standard for certificate of appealability)