James Cavanaugh v. Tracy Johns

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Cavanaugh, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 18 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition. On appeal, Cavanaugh argues that the Bureau of Prisons erred in refusing to consider his vested good conduct time in calculating his eligibility for the Elderly Offender Home Detention Pilot Program. We agree with the district court that Cava-naugh had not served the “greater of 10 years or 75 percent of the term of imprisonment to which [he] was sentenced,” 42 U.S.C. § 17541(g)(5)(A)(ii) (2006), and he therefore was ineligible for the program. See Izzo v. Wiley, 620 F.3d 1257, 1260 (10th Cir.2010) (“Under a plain-language analysis, we hold that the phrase “term of imprisonment to which the offender was *262 sentenced” unambiguously refers to the term imposed by the sentencing court, without any consideration of good time credit”)- We therefore affirm the district court’s order on this ground. 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.