NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

RENÉE MARIE BUMB, District Judge.

On February 5, 2019, Petitioner Pedro Perez, a prisoner confined in the Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI-Fort Dix") in Fort Dix, New Jersey, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner asserts the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") abused its discretion in applying a Public Safety Factor that precludes awarding him a one-year sentence reduction for completion of a Residential Drug Abuse Program ("RDAP"). (Pet., ¶13.)

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, applicable to § 2241 under Rule 1(b) scope of the rules, a district judge must promptly examine a petition, and "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the Clerk to notify the petitioner." For the reasons discussed below, the Court lacks jurisdiction under § 2241.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner alleges the following in his brief in support of his petition. ("Petr's Brief," ECF No. 1-1.) On May 24, 2017, Petitioner was sentenced to a 60-month term of imprisonment for interference with commerce by threat of violence. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner is housed at FCI Fort Dix, and he has completed an RDAP program and requested a one-year reduction of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). (Id., Ex. A.)1 His request was denied because his offense of conviction involved carrying, possessing or using a firearm. (Id., Ex. B.) Petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies. (Id.)2

Petitioner contends denial of his early release eligibility for RDAP completion was an abuse of discretion, citing BOP Program Statement 5162.05(4) ". . . offenses that at the Director's discretion shall preclude an inmate receiving certain Bureau Program benefits. . . an inmate may be denied if he or she was convicted of an offense listed in either this section or section 3." (Petr's Brief, ECF No 1-1 at 8.) Petitioner submits the following factors in support of his argument that the Director abused his discretion in denying him early RDAP release: (1) Petitioner never received any incident reports or disciplinary sanctions; (2) although he plead guilty and was "enhanced for simple possession of a gun and/or money, there was never a gun found in his case nor was he in any possession of money;" (3) the sentencing judge found Petitioner was not a flight risk, and Petitioner maintained full-time employment while on bail and he self-surrendered for sentencing; (4) Petitioner is 40 years old and unlikely to be a recidivist, and his good conduct and rehabilitative efforts suggest he would be unlikely to commit a crime; (5) Petitioner was granted a 60-month downward departure under 5K1.1 at sentencing for his cooperation. (Id. at 8-10.) Petitioner then provides several examples of inmates who had weapon sentence enhancements but were granted early release for RDAP completion. (Petr's Brief, ECF No. 1-1 at 10-11.)

II. DISCUSSION

"After an inmate completes RDAP, the BOP has discretion to reduce what remains of his sentence by as much as one year." Scott v. FCI Fairton, 407 F. App'x 612, 615 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B); 28 C.F.R. § 550.55.)

28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides, in relevant part, "(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless— . . . (3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States[.]" There is no liberty interest in eligibility for early release from prison based on RDAP completion. See Becerra v. Miner, 248 F. App'x 368, 370 (3d Cir. 2007) ("[b]eing classified with a [Public Safety Factor] . . . and its resulting consequences of disqualification for certain programs" does not implicate an inmate's due process liberty interest) (citing Rublee v. Fleming, 160 F.3d 213, 214 (5th Cir. 1998) (no liberty interest in early release for completion of drug abuse program); Barth v. Warden, FCI Fort Dix, Civ. No. 09-3519(JBS), 2009 WL 2634656 at *4 (D.N.J. Aug. 25, 2009) ("Petitioner's inability to pursue early release due to his detainer does not implicate his due process rights, for he had no liberty interest in a sentence reduction under Section 3621(e).") Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction under § 2241 to determine whether the BOP decision violates the Constitution.

Petitioner seeks review of the BOP's decision by alleging the BOP abused its discretion. Under certain circumstances, a district court can review an agency decision for abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), which provides:

Review of agency decisions under the Administrative Procedures Act, is however, limited. 18 U.S.C. § 3625 provides, in relevant part, "the provisions of sections . . . 701 through 706 of title 5, United States Code, do not apply to the making of any determination, decision, or order under this subchapter." Petitioner argues that the BOP abused its discretion by denying his request for early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B), which states:

18 U.S.C. § 3621 falls under the same subchapter of the Administrative Procedures Act as Section 3625. Therefore, review of the BOP's determination under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) is not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act for abuse of discretion.3

III. CONCLUSION

This Court lacks jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition. In the alternative, the Court finds that the petition lacks merit. An appropriate order follows.