Dickinson

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Loyd G. Dickinson appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review a district court’s denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Dickinson contends that retroactive application of the amendments to section 235 of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“SRA”), which extend the life of the Parole Commission, violate the Equal Protection Clause by delaying the presumptive release date for prisoners sentenced under the old law. This contention is without merit. Where there is no protected class, an equal protection claim is subject to the rational basis test. See McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 270 , 93 S.Ct. 1055 , 35 L.Ed.2d 282 (1973) (applying rational basis test to prisoners). Accordingly because the amendments imposed under the SRA served a legitimate government purpose, Dickinson’s equal protection claim must fail. See SRA Pub. L. No. 100, 182, § 2(a), 101 Stat. 1266 (1987) (stating that Congress acted to streamline sentencing process and equalize terms of incarceration for similarly…