Dozier

MEMORANDUM *

Dozier has not shown that the Bureau of Prisons violated his due process rights. 1 Dozier has no liberty interest in the discretionary sentence reduction available under 18 U.S.C. § 3621 (e)(2)(B). 2 An inmate has no right to be confined in any particular prison, nor does he have a right to be transferred to any particular prison. 3 There is no requirement that prisoners pass through community treatment centers en route to free society, 4 and an inmate has no right to a specific educational or vocational program in prison, or to be transferred to another institution to participate in a program. 5 Dozier freely chose not to be transferred to another prison where he would have immediately benefit-ted from the drug treatment program and a possible reduction in sentence, so the incarceration portion of Dozier’s sentence was prolonged by his own decision to knowingly and voluntarily forego the opportunity that was offered to him.

Neither Cort v. Crabtree 6 nor Bowen v. Hood, 7 support Dozier’s claim because those cases are limited to inmates who were notified of early release eligibility but then denied release based on Bureau of Prisons rule changes that were…

concurring.

I concur in the result.