gave the Bureau for the administration of the residential treatment program. See Reno v. Koray, 132 L. Ed. 2d 46, 115 S. Ct. 2021, 2027 (1995).
In addition, we note that the Bureau's denial of a sentence reduction does not deprive petitioner of a liberty interest cognizable under the Due Process clause. The terms of 18 U.S.C. § 3621 (e) (2) (B) only state that a sentence "may be reduced by the Bureau of Prisons." Such language does not create a liberty interest, and the Bureau's denial of a reduction is not a "dramatic departure from the basic conditions" of petitioner's sentence. See Sandin v. Conner, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2301 (1995).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. An appropriate order will be filed herewith.
For the reasons set forth in this Court's opinion filed even date herewith;
It is on this 15th day of August, 1996:
ORDERED that Douglas Lansing be and hereby is substituted as the sole respondent in this matter; and it is further,
ORDERED that Daniel Piccolo's petition for a writ of habeas corpus be and hereby is DENIED and this case is hereby CLOSED.
ANNE E. THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.