Barber v. Thomas

Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (2010), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It concerned how the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons should calculate "good time credits", reduced sentences for inmates who stayed out of trouble while in custody.[1]

Barber v. Thomas
Argued March 30, 2010
Decided June 7, 2010
Full case nameMichael Gary Barber, et al., Petitioners v. J. E. Thomas, Warden
Docket no.09-5201
Citations560 U.S. 474 (more)
130 S. Ct. 2499; 177 L. Ed. 2d 1; 78 USLW 4509; 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6983; 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8311; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 419
Holding
A federal inmate who demonstrates "good behavior," is entitled to 54 days credit for every year of actual imprisonment.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor
DissentKennedy, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg

Background

The petitioner, Michael Barber, sought habeas corpus in a federal district court. He argued that the Bureau of Prisons "inaccurately calculated his good time credit toward the service of his federal sentence." Barber argued that the BOP should have calculated good time credit based on the sentence imposed rather than the time actually served in prison. Barbers petition was denied by the district court, on appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed the ruling of the lower courts citing Tablada v. Daniels noting that the good time credit statute was ambiguous and the BOP's interpretation was reasonable.[2]

Opinion of the Court

The court affirmed the lower court's ruling with a 6–3 vote. Barber's attorneys argued that by allowing up to 54 days' credit for each year "of the prisoner's term of imprisonment," Congress intended federal sentences to be reduced by as much as 54 days for each year of the sentence imposed by the judge. The government argued that the reduction applied at the end of each year that is actually served. Under that interpretation, which prevailed, since the sentence keeps being reduced year after year, less credit in total is awarded. The difference is about one week per year for every federal prisoner serving a term of more than a year's duration. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Kennedy wrote the dissent.

See also

References
  1. Supreme Court justices have a good time debating 'good time'
  2. "Barber v. Thomas 560 US _____(2010)". Oyez: Chicago Kent College of Law. Retrieved 11 January 2014.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.