Fifth Circuit on the calculation of good-time credit

The Fifth Circuit released today Moreland vs. Federal Bureau Prisons, 05-20347 (5th Cir. Nov. 10, 2005) (available here), an important decision about the calculation of good-time credits.  Per Judge Owen, here is the opening paragraph:

In this habeas corpus proceeding, we must determine whether a federal statute governing credit for good conduct unambiguously directs how that credit is to be calculated and applied. Because we conclude the statute is unambiguous, we do not address whether the rule of lenity applies or whether the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ interpretation of the statute must be accorded deference under Chevron, U.S.A. v. Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, Inc. and its progeny.  The Bureau of Prisons correctly determined the good-conduct credits in this case.  Therefore, we reverse the district court’s grant of habeas relief and deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Though federal inmates will surely care most about the outcome in Moreland, statutory construction and administrative law fans will likely be intrigued by the Fifth Circuit’s chosen means.  Highlighting this reality, consider these part of Judge Stewart’s special concurrence:

Rather than hinge reversal of the district court’s judgment upon whether this ambiguity is dissolved by the context of the words, I would uphold the BOP interpretation of the statute because it is one of at least two reasonable interpretations of § 3624(b)…. I agree with our sister circuits that found ambiguous the § 3624(b) language and that found applicable Chevron‘s deference.