Lopez v. Terrell
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14319
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Lopez challenges BOP's Good Conduct Time calculation under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) for presentence custody; district court ruled for Lopez; BOP interprets § 3624(b) to apply only to time served after sentencing, excluding presentence custody credited to another sentence; Lopez's presentence custody totaled 94 months but only 38 months remained post-sentence when calculating GCT; § 3585 determines presentence credit limitations, including time credited against another sentence; district court relied on § 523.17(l) and § 523.20 as basis for GCT, which the court rejects; appellate court must determine deference level to agency interpretation and the proper application of GCT to Lopez’s federal sentence (38 months vs 132 months).
- Lopez was arrested in 2000 and sentenced in state court to 4.5–9 years; federal indictment followed in 2005; federal sentence imposed in 2008 concurrent with state term, with 94 months presentence custody credited to the state sentence; BOP calculated GCT based on 38 months after sentencing, excluding pre-sentence custody; Lopez filed ARP and § 2241 petition challenging BOP’s interpretation; district court held BOP interpretation unpersuasive and Lopez prevailed; Second Circuit reverses and remands for dismissal of petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ambiguity and deference | § 3624(b) ambiguous on term of imprisonment | BOP interpretation grounded in regulation § 523.20 should apply | § 3624(b) ambiguous; defer to BOP interpretation under Skidmore rather than Chevron |
| GCT for presentence custody | Lopez should receive GCT for 94 months presentence custody | GCT limited to time serving after sentencing (federal sentence) and not presentence custody credited to another sentence | GCT limited to term of imprisonment constituting the federal sentence under § 3585; no GCT for presentence time credited to another sentence |
| Rivers guidance | Rivers requires similar treatment for § 3585(b) credits and § 5G1.3(b) adjustments | Rivers is distinguishable and not controlling for § 3624(b) context | Rivers distinguished; agency approach justified for § 3624(b) calculation |
| Regulatory basis | ARP decision and Cole's letter deserve Chevron deference | § 523.20 and related regulations support BOP approach | Chevron deference not applicable to informal letters; Skidmore deferential weight to agency reasoning |
Key Cases Cited
- Sash v. Zenk, 428 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2005) (§ 3624(b) ambiguity; Chevron deference to BOP permissible)
- Barber v. Thomas, 130 S. Ct. 2499 (Supreme Court 2010) (Chevron deference for BOP's interpretation reaffirmed)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (Supreme Court 1944) (persuasion standard for agency interpretations)
- Mead Corp. v. United States, 533 U.S. 218 (Supreme Court 2001) (deference framework for agency rules carrying force of law)
- Labeille-Soto, 163 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 1998) (presentence custody credited to state sentence cannot be credited to federal sentence)
- Gonzalez, 192 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 1999) (presentence custody credited to a state sentence cannot be credited to federal sentence)
- Schleining v. Thomas, 642 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2011) (presentence time not eligible for GCT when not part of federal sentence)
- Payton, 159 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1998) (pretrial detainees and GCT considerations under regulations)