Mujahid v. Daniels
No. 03-36038 (6-27-05). Petitioner takes another run at the way BOP calculates "good time." The 9th had previously ruled that the BOP's way of counting good time, i.e., waiting for a year to pass, was not unreasonable even though it shorted the inmate of not insubstantial credit because the calculation was to apply after service of the sentence is served and not as the sentence is imposed without regard to time served. Petitioner takes another run at it, arguing that the BOP calculation should only be used for the last year of the sentence and that rule of lenity undermines precedent. The 9th upholds precedent, Pacheco-Camacho, and that the BOP's reading is not unreasonable.