28 C.F.R. § 523.20

Good conduct time

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Bureau of Prisons (Bureau or BOP) awards good conduct time (GCT) credit to inmates under conditions described in this section. GCT credit may be reduced if an inmate:

(1) Commits prohibited acts which result in certain disciplinary sanctions (see part 541 of this chapter); or

(2) Fails to comply with literacy requirements in this section and part 544 of this chapter.

(b) For inmates serving a sentence for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987:

(1) The Bureau will award inmates up to 54 days of GCT credit for each year of the sentence imposed by the court. Consistent with this methodology, the Bureau will initially determine a projected release date by calculating the maximum GCT credit possible based on the length of an inmate's imposed sentence. The projected release date is subject to change during the inmate's incarceration.

(2) The Bureau will award prorated credit for any partial final year of the sentence imposed, subject to the requirements in this section. Accordingly, BOP calculates the projected GCT credit to be awarded for any portion of a sentence that is less than a full year at a prorated amount.

(3) An inmate may receive up to 54 days of GCT credit on each anniversary date of his or her imposed sentence, subject to the requirements in this section. Credit for the last year of a term of imprisonment is awarded the day after the end of the final “anniversary period,” unless the final year is a complete year, in which case credit for the last year is awarded on the first day of the final anniversary period

(4) When the inmate reaches the Bureau-projected release date, the sentence will be satisfied and the inmate will be eligible for release.

(c) For inmates serving a sentence for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987, but before September 13, 1994, GCT credit is vested once received and cannot be withdrawn.

(d)(1) For inmates serving a sentence for offenses committed on or after September 13, 1994, but before April 26, 1996, all GCT credit will vest annually only for inmates who have earned, or are making satisfactory progress toward earning, a high school diploma, equivalent degree, or Bureau-authorized alternative program credit (see part 544 of this chapter).

(2) For inmates serving a sentence for an offense committed on or after April 26, 1996, the Bureau will award:

(i) Up to 54 days of GCT credit for each year of the sentence imposed, applied on the anniversary date of his or her imposed sentence, if the inmate has earned or is making satisfactory progress toward earning a high school diploma, equivalent degree, or Bureau-authorized alternative program credit; or

(ii) Up to 42 days of GCT credit for each year of the sentence imposed, applied on the anniversary date of his/her imposed sentence, if the inmate does not meet conditions described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.

(3) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section, a noncitizen (inmate who is not a citizen of the United States) who is subject to a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, is not required to participate in a literacy program to earn yearly awards of GCT credit. However, such inmates remain eligible to participate in literacy programs under part 544 of this chapter.

[87 FR 7943, Feb. 11, 2022]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 81 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “With the sentence the district court imposed, minus time off for good behavior under § 3624, Irey would be 65 years old when released.”

Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 9× “GUTIERREZ, District Judge: In this appeal, we consider whether the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) in promulgating 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 , the regulation interpreting 18 U.”

Lopez v. Terrell, 654 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 10× “§ 3624 (b) to permit the award of GCT "only for time actually served rather than on the sentence imposed[,]" which meant that Lopez was eligible for GCT only for the 38 months following the date on which he was sentenced in district court, and not for his 94 months of…”

David Yi v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons Vanessa P. Adams, Warden of Fci-Petersburg, the Off. of the Fed. Pub. Def., Amicus Supporting, 412 F.3d 526 (4th Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “” 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 . Yi contends that the BOP’s method of calculating GCT is contrary to the plain language of 18 U.”

Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (2010). · cites it 2× “66752 (adopting 28 CFR §523.20 ). But when pressed during an earlier stage of this litigation, BOP conceded that it had “failed to articulate in the adminis trative record the rationale upon which it relied when it promulgated” the rule.”

Francisco Pacheco-Camacho v. Robert Hood, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Sheridan Oregon, 272 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 523.20 . The regulation consequently prorates the fifty-four days of credit a year earned by the model prisoner to 0.”

Travis Denny v. Paul Schultz, 708 F.3d 140 (3rd Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “§ 3624 (b); 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 Hernandez-Zapata had completed serving the custodial portion of his criminal sentence and had been released to United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention.”

Yancey Lamarr White v. Joseph Scibana, 390 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “” 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 (emphasis added). The Bureau has also issued, as part of its Sentence Computation Manual, Program Statement 5880.”

Eliot S. Sash v. Michael Zenk, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 428 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “The petitioner argues that the interpretation of this provision by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 , contravenes the clear language of the statute.”

Perez-Olivo v. Chavez, 394 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “See 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 . That rule states that “[pjursuant to 18 U.”

United States v. Brenton-Farley, 607 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2010). “§ 3624 ; 28 C.F.R. §§ 523.20 , 541.13 (2005).”

Al-Marri v. Davis, 714 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “al- Marri’s favor—we will also assume that the BOP’s implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 523.20 , does not resolve the statutory ambiguity.”

Show all 81 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.