Harris v. Warden

── Harris v. Warden ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-3086 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 28, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court SEAN HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. No. 25-3086 (D.C. No. 5:25-CV-03006-JWL) WARDEN, FCI - Leavenworth, (D. Kan.) Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before TYMKOVICH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Sean Harris is a federal prisoner in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at FCI Leavenworth in Kansas. Proceeding pro se, 1 Mr. Harris appeals from the district court’s denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. His petition alleged that the BOP miscalculated his First Step Act time credits (“FTCs”), which After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. We construe a pro se litigant’s papers liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon, 1 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But we do not “serv[e] as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).  Appellate Case: 25-3086 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 2 he had earned in the seven-month period between his sentencing and arrival at his designated BOP facility. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we hold that because Mr. Harris failed to show that he actually earned any FTCs through successful participation in qualifying programming, he did not meet his burden to establish entitlement to habeas relief. We therefore AFFIRM. BACKGROUND I. Relevant Law The First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”) mandated the development of a “risk and needs assessment system” to be used “as part of the intake process” for federal prisoners in BOP custody. 18 U.S.C. § 3632(a). Under the FSA, the BOP must use the risk-and-needs assessment to evaluate each prisoner’s recidivism risk, and to assign each prisoner to appropriate programming based on his “specific criminogenic needs.” 2 Id. § 3632(a)(1), (3). The FSA created various “incentives and rewards” for federal prisoners to participate in programs designed to lower recidivism risk. Id. § 3632(d). FTCs are one such incentive: A prisoner who “successfully completes” evidence-based 2 The BOP’s risk-and-needs assessment system consists of two parts. The Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (“PATTERN”) measures and tracks changes in a prisoner’s recidivism risk over his term of incarc