The case centered on Raul Rivera-Perez, who was serving 360 months for conspiring to distribute cocaine at Federal Correctional Institution Danbury, followed by five years of supervised release. Rivera-Perez had earned over 700 First Step Act credits but argued the Bureau of Prisons incorrectly calculated his benefits and refused to release him to home confinement despite his eligibility.
Judge Joseph Bianco rejected the lower court's interpretation, writing that the FSA's text "makes clear that when time credits are 'applied toward time in ... supervised release,' they reduce a prisoner's time in incarceration by starting a term of supervised release early." The court found the second sentence of Section 3632(d)(4)(C), which directs BOP transfers of eligible prisoners "into prerelease custody or supervised release," confirms the statute addresses early transfers rather than term reductions.
Rivera-Perez initially filed his habeas petition challenging the BOP's calculation of his FSA credits while imprisoned. After he was transferred to a residential reentry center in January 2024, the government moved to dismiss as moot. District Judge Stefan Underhill then sua sponte reframed the petition as seeking to apply unused credits to reduce Rivera-Perez's supervised release term, ultimately granting the petition.
The ruling deepens a circuit split on FSA credit application, with the Second Circuit joining the Sixth, Fourth, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits against credit reduction, while the Ninth Circuit has held credits can reduce supervised release terms. Judge Alison Nathan dissented, arguing the statute's plain language allows credits to be applied "toward time in ... supervised release," and Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote separately emphasizing that time credits provide inherent benefits through programming participation.