UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ALAN MOON,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

W. J. THOMPSON, in his official
                                                                  No. 97-6247
capacity as Warden, Federal
Correctional Institution,
Morgantown, West Virginia,
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge.
(CA-96-158-1)

Submitted: September 29, 1998

Decided: October 22, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Alan Moon, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United
States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Alan Moon appeals the district court's order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. Moon asserts that the Bureau of
Prisons erred in finding him ineligible for a sentence reduction under
18 U.S.C.A. § 3621(e)(2) (West Supp. 1998), based on his prior con-
viction for a violent offense. According to Moon, his firearm convic-
tion, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West Supp. 1998), was
a nonviolent offense and should not have disqualified him from con-
sideration for a reduction. In support, Moon points to 28 C.F.R.
§ 550.58 (1995), which defines the term "nonviolent offense" by ref-
erence to the definition of "crime of violence" in 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(3) (1994). The definition in § 924(c)(3) would not include
Moon's firearm offense as it did not involve the use or threat of phys-
ical force against another.

However, while Moon's appeal was pending, the Bureau of Prisons
("BOP") adopted a revised § 550.58, which abandons reference to
§ 924(c)(3) and explicitly includes possession of a firearm in its deter-
mination of disqualifying offenses. See 28 C.F.R. § 550.58 (1997).
Accordingly, Moon's case is governed by our recent decision in
Pelissero v. Thompson, ___ F.3d ___, 

(4th Cir.
Sept. 3, 1998), where we held that revised § 550.58 applied to cases
pending on the date of enactment. We further found that revised
§ 550.58 was a valid exercise of the BOP's discretion under
§ 3621(e).

Pelissero renders most of Moon's contentions moot. Moon's
remaining claims are meritless. We therefore affirm the district
court's denial of Moon's § 2241 petition on the reasoning in
Pelissero. We grant Moon's motion to consider newly-discovered
caselaw. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    2