UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JAMES BENJAMIN DAVIS, JR.,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.                                                                    No. 95-8577

FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge.
(CA-95-129-5-BO)

Submitted: April 30, 1996

Decided: May 24, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James Benjamin Davis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe Del-
Forge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH
CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

James B. Davis appeals from the district court's order denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We affirm.

Davis contends that he has been denied the application of gain time
credits towards his parole eligibility date. A review of North Caroli-
na's rules governing gain time credits reveals that the Department of
Corrections is under no statutory obligation to apply these credits in
such a manner. This Court will not disturb these state rules unless
they are clearly arbitrary or capricious. Ham v. North Carolina, 

, 407 (4th Cir. 1973).

Davis has attempted to demonstrate such capriciousness through an
Equal Protection Clause claim. Davis explains that the DOC's present
system treats inmates sentenced to pre-Fair Sentencing Act natural
life terms differently than inmates sentenced to a term of years under
the Fair Sentencing Act. Neither parole nor gain time credits are fun-
damental rights. Further, inmates serving life sentences are not a sus-
pect class. Accordingly, we review any discriminatory treatment in
the applicability of gain time between life and non-life inmates under
the rational relation test. Kadrmas v. Dickinson Pub. Sch., 

, 457-58 (1988). Not advancing the parole eligibility date of
inmates serving life sentences through the application of gain time
credits arguably serves a legitimate government penological interest
in ensuring that inmates convicted of crimes warranting a life sen-
tence serve a significant portion of their sentence. Accordingly, we
find Davis' equal protection argument to be without merit.

Davis also makes a due process claim. We find that the broad dis-
cretion afforded states in the administration of such matters warrants
dismissal of this claim as well. There being no other showing that the
North Carolina rules governing gain time are arbitrary or capricious,
we will not disturb those rules. We therefore affirm the district court's
dismissal of Davis' petition. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.

AFFIRMED

                     2