Full Opinion

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-2921 JEFFREY R. JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. BRIAN LAMMER, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 25-cv-661-jdp — James D. Peterson, Chief Judge. ____________________ SUBMITTED JULY 28, 2026 * — DECIDED JULY 29, 2026 ____________________ Before SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and MALDONADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Jeffrey Jones, a federal prisoner convicted of drug trafficking offenses, challenges the dismissal of his peti- tion for relief for under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He contests the de- * We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 2 No. 25-2921 termination of the Federal Bureau of Prisons that his convic- tion for distributing fentanyl makes him ineligible for that re- lief. We affirm. Jones pleaded guilty in 2021 to distributing 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing fentanyl, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(B)(vi); 18 U.S.C. § 2, and was sen- tenced to 150 months’ imprisonment. In 2025, he petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the Bureau of Prisons arbitrarily denied him time credits under the First Step Act. He argued that two of the Act’s stat- utory provisions—18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) and (lxviii), which exclude prisoners with certain drug convictions from earning time credits—conflict and that their application is am- biguous. The district court denied the petition. The court deter- mined that Jones’s conviction under § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi) for dis- tributing 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance contain- ing fentanyl rendered him ineligible under § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) for time credits under the Act. And the court concluded that Jones failed to show any inconsistency or redundancy between § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) and § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii). We begin with a few words about the First Step Act. The Act provides eligible federal prisoners with the opportunity to earn time credits by “successfully complet[ing] evidence- based recidivism reduction programming or productive ac- tivities.” 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(A). But certain enumerated convictions disqualify prisoners from earning time credits. See id. § 3632(d)(4)(D). Relevant here, the Act expressly ex- cludes prisoners convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi) No. 25-2921 3 for distributing 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing fentanyl from being eligible for time credits: Ineligible prisoners.--A prisoner is ineligi- ble to receive time credits under this paragraph if the prisoner is serving a sentence for a convic- tion under any of the following provisions of law: …. (lxvi) Subparagraph (A)(vi) or (B)(vi) of sec- tion 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)) or paragraph (1)(F) or (2)(F) of section 1010(b) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)), relat- ing to manufacturing, distributing, dispensing, or possessing with intent to manufacture, dis- tribute, or dispense, a mixture or substance con- taining a detectable amount of N-phenyl-N-[1- (2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide, or any analogue thereof. † 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi). Similarly, a prisoner is dis- qualified from earning time credits if (a) he is convicted under § 841(b)(1), and (b) the sentencing court finds that “the offense involved a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of” fentanyl and the prisoner “was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense.” Id. § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii). On appeal, Jones concedes that his conviction falls under § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) but maintains that this provision is in † N-phenyl-N-[1-(2-phenylethyl)-4-piperidinyl] propanamide is a sci- entific term for fentanyl. 4 No. 25-2921 “irreconcilable conflict” with § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii). Both pro- visions overlap, he says, in that they address fentanyl-related convictions, but he urges he should be eligible for time credits because the sentencing court did not find that he was a leader or supervisor for purposes of § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii). And be- cause the application of these provisions is ambiguous, he ar- gues that the ambiguity should be resolved in his favor. As the district court rightly concluded, there is no ambi- guity concerning the application of § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) and § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii). The provisions deny time-credit eligi- bility for different courses of conduct: § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxvi) applies when a prisoner’s offense involves a threshold quan- tity of mixtures or substances including fentanyl, while § 3632(d)(4)(D)(lxviii) applies when the offense involves a de- tectable amount of fentanyl and the prisoner acted as a leader or supervisor in the offense. That a prisoner could conceiva- bly be rendered ineligible for time credits under both provi- sions does not mean that a prisoner is eligible for time credits when his offense falls under one provision but not the other. AFFIRMED