BIEAR v. HOLLINGSWORTH

Filing 22

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 9/1/2016. (tf, n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JAMES STEVEN BIEAR,
Petitioner,

Civil No. 13-3501 (NLH)

v.
JORDAN HOLLINGSWORTH,

OPINION

Respondents.
APPEARANCES:
JAMES STEVEN BIEAR, #62930-054
FCI McKean
P.O. Box 8000
Bradford, PA 16701
Petitioner Pro Se
DAVID VINCENT BOBER, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
PAUL J. FISHMAN, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
402 East State Street - Suite 430
Trenton, New Jersey 08608
Attorney for Respondent
HILLMAN, District Judge:
James Biear filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the calculation of his
projected release date by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).

By

Order and accompanying Opinion entered on August 2, 2016, this
Court dismissed the Petition.

By letter dated August 13, 2016,

Biear seeks reconsideration of denial of his Petition.

The

motion for reconsideration will be denied.
L. Civ. R. 7.1(i) provides for reconsideration upon a
showing that dispositive factual matters or controlling

decisions of law were overlooked by the court in reaching its
prior decision.

Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and

granted sparingly.
Cir. 2011).

See Blystone v. Horn, 664 F.3d 397, 415 (3d

The three principal grounds for relief are (1) an

intervening change in controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence
not previously availably has become available; or (3) it is
necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice.

See Wiest v. Lynch, 710 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir. 2013)

(citing Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010)).
The motion can succeed only if the overlooked matters might
reasonably have resulted in a different conclusion by the court.
Biear’s letter requesting reconsideration refers to a prior
letter dated July 30, 2016, in which he states:

“I believe the

interpretation of [my sentence of time served] being 1 year,
conflicts with ‘only the legislature can define crimes and fix
punishments.’

This interpretation also ignores the ‘rule of

lenity [changing a time served sentence to 1 year w/o any good
time credit considerations].’” (ECF No. 18 at 1.)
Biear argued in his Petition that the BOP had improperly
determined that his New York sentence of “time served” was a
one-year term of imprisonment running from November 24, 2009,
through November 23, 2010.

This Court rejected the argument,

finding that the BOP had not abused its discretion:

2

The record shows that a New York state prosecutor
informed the BOP’s Designation and Sentence
Computation Center that Biear was found guilty of a
Class A misdemeanor and that a class A misdemeanor
sentence was limited to a one-year term. As the
sentence of “time served” was imposed on August 16,
2012, and New York had primary jurisdiction over Biear
from November 24, 2009, through August 15, 2012, the
BOP did not abuse its discretion in considering
Biear’s state sentence to be one year, which ran from
November 24, 2009, through November 23, 2010.
(ECF No. 16 at 14.)
Biear advances no change in controlling law nor evidence
not previously available that has become available.

Biear does

not point to a clear error of law or the need to prevent
manifest injustice.
reconsideration.

Accordingly, Biear is not entitled to

The Court will file an Oder denying the

request.

s/Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

September 1, 2016

At Camden, New Jersey

3