Bernitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Bernitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
23 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Brown (ca8, 2010-03-25)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Brown
8th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
Health § 3383 ", rendering it "unlawful for any person to manufacture, sell or possess with the intent to sell, an imitation controlled substance,"] was a proscription of the sale of substances which resembled otherwise legitimate substances, i.e., "look-a-likes[.]"). [6] As to the majority's conclusion that any ambiguity in the statute requires resolution in Brown's favor under the rule of lenity, "[w]e do not resort to the rule of lenity where, as here, we can otherwise resolve the ambiguity of the statute." Bernitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868, 869 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Salazar-Montero
N.D. Iowa · 2007 · confidence medium
Thus, in this court’s view, the legislative history, and specifically the congressional purposes expressed in the act, as well as general principles of law relating to theft, see Florida Power & Light Co., 470 U.S. at 737 , 105 S.Ct. 1598 , all support reading the statute to require knowledge that the means of identification used, transferred, or possessed belonged to another person. 4 *1094 Finally, because the court believes that resort to canons of statutory interpretation for an ambiguous statute resolve the ambiguity, it is unnecessary to resort to the rule of lenity, see Bernitt, 432 F…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Terry D. Nading
8th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Finally, we reject as meritless Nading’s remaining arguments: there is no mention in the record of any sentencing agreement between Nading and the probation office; the record reflects that the district court was aware of Nading’s personal circumstances; the policy statements in Chapter 7 are not binding on the district court and thus are not laws within the meaning of the Ex Post Facto Clause, see United States v. Levi, 2 F.3d 842, 845 (8th Cir. 1993); time spent in a residential community center is not “official detention” for purposes of sentencing credit, see Moreland v. United Sta…
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Gregory Polydore (2×)
5th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bemitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868 , 869 (8th Cir.2005); Sash v. Zenk, 428 F.3d 132, 136 (2d Cir.2005); Petty v. Stine, 424 F.3d 509, 510 (6th Cir.2005); Brown v. McFadden, 416 F.3d 1271, 1272-73 (11th Cir.2005); Yi v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 412 F.3d 526, 533 (4th Cir.2005); O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir.2005); Perez-Olivo v. Chavez, 394 F.3d 45, 52 (1st Cir. 2005); White v. Scibana, 390 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (7th Cir.2004); Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266, 1269-70 (9th Cir.2001); but see Moreland v. Fed.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Gordon Sonnenberg (2×)
8th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bernitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868 , 869 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) -6- (“We do not resort to the rule of lenity where, as here, we can otherwise resolve the ambiguity of the statute.”) Conclusion The judgment and sentence are affirmed. ______________________________ -7-
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Sonnenberg
8th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bernitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868 , 869 (8th Cir.2005) (per cu-riam) (“We do not resort to the rule of lenity where, as here, we can otherwise resolve the ambiguity of the statute.”) Conclusion The judgment and sentence are affirmed. 1 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Rudolph George Stanko (2×)
8th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bernitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868 , 869 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) ("We do not resort to the rule of lenity where, as here, we can otherwise resolve the ambiguity of the statute.").
cited Cited "see" United States v. Rudolph G. Stanko
8th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bernitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868 , 869 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“We do not resort to the rule of lenity where, as here, we can otherwise resolve the ambiguity of the statute.”).
discussed Cited "see" Michael Antonelli v. Linda Sanders
8th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bernitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868, 869 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (§ 3624(b) is ambiguous and BOP’s calculation of good-conduct time, based on time actually served, is reasonable interpretation of § 3624(b); court will not resort to rule of lenity when ambiguity of statute can be otherwise resolved).
examined Cited "see" Wright v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (4×)
10th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bernitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868, 869 (8th Cir.2005); Sash, 428 F.3d at 136 ; Petty v. Stine, 424 F.3d 509, 510 (6th Cir.2005); Brown v. McFadden, 416 F.3d 1271, 1272-73 (11th Cir.2005); Yi, 412 F.3d at 533 ; O'Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir.2005); Perez-Olivo, 394 F.3d at 52 ; White, 390 F.3d at 1002-03 ; Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266, 1269-70 (9th Cir.2001); but see Moreland v. Fed.
discussed Cited "see" Kamal K. Patel v. Linda Sanders
8th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bernitt v. Martinez, 432 F.3d 868, 869 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (§ 3624(b) is ambiguous and BOP’s calculation of good-conduct time, based on time actually served, is reasonable interpretation of § 3624(b); court will not resort to rule of lenity when ambiguity of statute can be otherwise resolved); Perez-Olivo v. Chavez, 394 F.3d 45, 47 , 52 n. 6 (1st Cir.2005) (BOP’s time-served interpretation, embodied in 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 , was adopted pursuant to notice-and-comment procedure and is entitled to deference).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alan Bernitt John J. Villa, Civ 04-4140 Kenneth Ferguson, Civ 04-4133 Robert J. Kinney, Civ 04-4135 Keith Koski, Civ 04-4136 Matthew Diame Berry, Civ 04-4179 Timothy C. Whitfield, Sr., Civ 04-4126 Odin Dylan Payne, Civ 04-4146 Leroy Young, Civ 04-4161 Dean R. Wiese, Civ 04-4162 Darlis L. Miller, Civ 04-4175 Bobby Dale Smith, Civ 04-4176 Hector Gonzalez, Civ 04-4183 Kurt Cargle, Civ 04-4188 Gary D. Wininger, Civ 04-4189 Billy Joe Worley, Jr., Civ 04-4190 Patrick Sean Freel, Civ 04-4158 Maury Turner, Civ 04-4198 Darren Douglas, Civ 04-4199 Roger Leigh Oehler, Civ 04-4157 Harold Ryan, Civ 04-4214 Everett Smith, Civ 05-4012 Randy Dann, Civ 05-4015 Timothy Wiles Haynes, Civ 05-4026 Robert Leuthauser, Civ 05-4046 Myron R. Tallman, Civ 05-4051
v.
R. Martinez
05-2508.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Dec 28, 2005.
432 F.3d 868
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

432 F.3d 868

Alan BERNITT; John J. Villa, CIV 04-4140; Kenneth Ferguson, CIV 04-4133; Robert J. Kinney, CIV 04-4135; Keith Koski, CIV 04-4136; Matthew Diame Berry, CIV 04-4179; Timothy C. Whitfield, Sr., CIV 04-4126; Odin Dylan Payne, CIV 04-4146; Leroy Young, CIV 04-4161; Dean R. Wiese, CIV 04-4162; Darlis L. Miller, CIV 04-4175; Bobby Dale Smith, CIV 04-4176; Hector Gonzalez, CIV 04-4183; Kurt Cargle, CIV 04-4188; Gary D. Wininger, CIV 04-4189; Billy Joe Worley, Jr., CIV 04-4190; Patrick Sean Freel, CIV 04-4158; Maury Turner, CIV 04-4198; Darren Douglas, CIV 04-4199; Roger Leigh Oehler, CIV 04-4157; Harold Ryan, CIV 04-4214; Everett Smith, CIV 05-4012; Randy Dann, CIV 05-4015; Timothy Wiles Haynes, CIV 05-4026; Robert Leuthauser, CIV 05-4046; Myron R. Tallman, CIV 05-4051, Appellants,
v.
R. MARTINEZ, Appellee.

No. 05-2508.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: December 22, 2005.

Filed: December 28, 2005.

Richard L. Johnson, Sioux Falls, SD, for appellant.

Jan L. Holmgren, Asst. U.S. Atty., Sioux Falls, SD, for appellee.

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~868]1

Appellants, all inmates at the Yankton Federal Prison Camp in South Dakota, appeal the district court's[1] denial of their consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions, in which they challenge the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) calculation of their good conduct time (GCT) under 18 U.S.C. § 3624.[2] Appellants contend that their GCT should be calculated based upon the length of incarceration imposed at sentencing, rather than—as provided by BOP policy, set out at 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 (2005)—based on the time actually served by the inmate.

2

We conclude that section 3624(b) is ambiguous because it does not clearly indicate whether a prisoner's GCT is based on the time served in prison or the sentence imposed. Because section 3624(b) is ambiguous, we must defer to the BOP's interpretation if it is reasonable. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844-45, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). We agree with our sister circuits that the BOP's interpretation of section 3624(b) is reasonable. See Brown v. McFadden, 416 F.3d 1271, 1273 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (finding § 3624(b)(1) ambiguous and holding BOP policy of calculating GCT based on actual time served is entitled to deference as it is reasonable); Yi v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 412 F.3d 526, 533-34 (4th Cir.2005) (same); Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (same); O'Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 174 (3d Cir.2005) (per curiam) (same); Perez-Olivio v. Chavez, 394 F.3d 45, 51-53 (1st Cir.2005) (same); White v. Scibana, 390 F.3d 997, 999-1003 (7th Cir.2004) (same), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2921, 162 L.Ed.2d 297 (2005); Pacheco-Camacho v. Hood, 272 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (9th Cir.2001) (same), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1105, 122 S.Ct. 2313, 152 L.Ed.2d 1067 (2002).

3

Appellants' remaining argument is that, even if section 3624(b) is ambiguous, the district court should have applied the rule of lenity and resolved the ambiguity in their favor. This argument lacks merit. We do not resort to the rule of lenity where, as here, we can otherwise resolve the ambiguity of the statute. See O'Donald, 402 F.3d at 174; Perez-Olivio, 394 F.3d at 53-54.

[*~869]4

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Notes:

1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota

2

Section 3624(b)(1) provides:

[A] prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year . . . may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner's sentence, beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year of the prisoner's term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year of the term, subject to determination by the [BOP] that, during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations. . . . [C]redit for the last year or portion of the year of the term of imprisonment shall be prorated and credited within the last six weeks of the sentence.