Reeb v. Thomas, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4063

RDAP is an intensive federal inmate drug treatment program under 28 C.F.R. § 550.56, offering up to 1 year sentence reduction upon successful completion.
Reeb was convicted of methamphetamine distribution, sentenced to 135 months, and eligible for RDAP; he began RDAP in 2008 at Sheridan, Oregon.
Reeb was expelled from RDAP on April 2, 2008 after disruptive behavior in group counseling.
Reeb filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the expulsion and seeking readmission and a 12-month sentence reduction.
District court held that it had jurisdiction to review the RDAP decision and found no abuse of discretion in expulsion.
Government argued § 3625 precludes APA review of RDAP determinations; the district court rejected that and proceeded to merits review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 3625 preclude APA review of RDAP determinations?	Reeb	BOP	Yes; § 3625 precludes APA review of RDAP determinations.
May a court review the BOP's expulsion decision from RDAP for abuse of discretion?	Reeb asserts review under APA/2nd-guessing of discretion	BOP decisions are discretionary and not reviewable under APA	No; district court lacked jurisdiction to review substantive RDAP expulsion under APA.
Can alleged noncompliance with a BOP program statement support federal habeas review?	Reeb argues BOP's warnings violated Program Statement 5330.10	Program statements are internal guidelines, not federal-law violations	Noncompliance with internal guidelines is not a federal-law basis for habeas review.

Sackett v. U.S. E.P.A., 622 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2010) (precludes/defines judicial review considerations in agency actions)
United States v. Nader, 542 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2008) (statutory interpretation for preclusion of review)
Conn. Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) (plain-meaning rule for statutory interpretation)
Jacks v. Crabtree, 114 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 1997) (BOP program statements are interpretive; not the basis for APA review)
Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2000) (invalid retroactive application of program restrictions; expectations)
Downey v. Crabtree, 100 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 1996) (BOP has broad discretion over drug-treatment process)
Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230 (2001) (BOP authority to categorically deny early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621)
Mora-Meraz v. Thomas, 601 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2010) (unwritten BOP requirement governing RDAP evidence valid under APA)
Crickon v. Thomas, 579 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (APA review of BOP determinations scrutinized for validity)
Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (BOP exclusions from early release evaluated under APA)
McLean v. Crabtree, 173 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999) (review of BOP regulations as valid exercises of authority)
Sloan v. SEC, 436 U.S. 103 (1978) (judicial review for exceeded statutory authority; not applicable here)
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (no protected liberty interest in pre-release decisions)