Legal Opinion
Close v. Thomas
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided August 3, 2011No. 10-35850, 10-35851, 10-35853, 10-35852, 10-35854, 10-35855, 10-35856, 10-35857, 10-35858, 10-35859PublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PAEZ, Circuit Judge:
Petitioner Christopher Close and nine other similarly situated prisoners (collectively “Close” or “Petitioners”) appeal the district court’s judgment denying their 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petitions. These consolidated habeas petitions require us to consider the manner in which the Bureau of Prisons prioritizes a prisoner’s eligibility for entering into a Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Finding no error in the Bureau of Prisons’ interpretation of the governing statute, 18 U.S.C. §…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Moskal v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Reeb v. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Damous Nettles v. Randy GroundsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Daniel Rodriguez v. Paul CopenhaverCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Damous Nettles v. Randy GroundsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- United States v. DouglasCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
- Daniel Rodriguez v. Paul CopenhaverCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.