UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`CHIBUNDU ANUEBUNWA, : Case No. 3:25-CV-300 (SVN)
` Petitioner, :
`:
`v. :
`:
`WARDEN, FCI Danbury, :
`Respondent. : November 7, 2025
`
`
`ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
` Petitioner Chibundu Anuebunwa has filed what the Court construes as a motion for
`reconsideration of its order denying in part and granting in part his petition for writ of habeas
`corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Order, ECF No. 16; Pet’r Supp. Resp., ECF No. 18.
`When Petitioner filed his § 2241 Petition on February 27, 2025, he was incarcerated at the Federal
`Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut (“FCI Danbury”), in the custody of the Bureau
`of Prisons (“BOP”), but he was transferred to a Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) on May 20,
`2025.1 His current projected release date is November 22, 2025, and his sentence does not include
`a term of post-release supervision.2
`Petitioner seeks to have Respondent credit him under the First Step Act (“FSA”) for six
`courses he took between the date of his sentencing and the date of his arrival at FCI Danbury to
`reduce the remainder of his time in BOP custody at the RRC. See id.
`For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for
`
`1 The Court may “take judicial notice of relevant matters of public record.” Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161, 164 (2d
`Cir. 2012). A search on the publicly available BOP website under the inmate search function using Petitioner’s name
`shows that Petitioner is currently assigned to the Residential Reentry Management New York Field Office, and his
`release date is November 22, 2025. See BOP Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited November
`7, 2025); see also Pet., ECF No. 1 at 1; Notice of Pet’r Transfer, ECF No. 17 (“Petitioner’s transfer was completed on
`Tuesday, May 20, 2025. . . .”).
`2 See Moissonnier Decl., ECF No. 12 -1 at ¶ 7; see also Judgment, United States v. Anuebunwa, No. 16 -CR-575
`(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2023), ECF No. 114.
`Case 3:25-cv-00300-SVN Document 27 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`reconsideration.
`I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`On October 2, 2023, Petitioner was sentenced to a 66-month term of imprisonment with no
`term of supervised release. Moissonnier Decl., ECF No. 10-1, ¶ 4.3 He was held in post-sentencing
`detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York (“MDC Brooklyn”), ECF
`No. 20 at 3, and committed to FCI Danbury on December 11, 2023, see ECF No. 10-1 at 4.
`On February 27, 2025, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241
`on two grounds: (1) “improper withholding” of FSA credits for the period between his sentencing
`date and his arrival at FCI Danbury; and (2) improper failure to be transferred to prerelease
`custody, given his FSA credits calculation and eligibility for transfer. See Pet., ECF No. 1 at 2.
`After briefing by the parties,4 on May 15, 2025, the Court denied in part the § 2241 petition because
`Petitioner had neither alleged nor provided any evidence that he “successfully complete[d]
`evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities ” between the date of
`his sentencing and the date of his arrival at FCI Danbury. ECF No. 16 (alteration in original). The
`petition was granted in part because Respondent had conceded that Petitioner ha d accrued
`sufficient FSA credits and was otherwise eligible under the FSA for immediate transfer to
`prerelease custody. Id.
`Two days after Petitioner was transferred to RRC , he filed what the Court construes as a
`
`3 See also Judgment, United States v. Anuebunwa, No. 16-cr-575 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2023), ECF No. 114.
`4 Respondent initially argued that Petitioner was statutorily ineligible for the application of FSA credits to his sentence
`because he was subject to a final Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, see Resp. to Order to Show Cause , ECF
`No. 10 at 1, but Respondent subsequently advised the Court that the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement
`had cancelled Petitioner’s Order of Expedited Removal, and Petitioner was immediately eligible to apply his existing
`225 days of FSA credits towards RRC Placement, see Suppl. Resp. to Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 12 at 4.
`Case 3:25-cv-00300-SVN Document 27 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`motion for reconsideration , and provided a list of six courses he had completed while at MDC
`Brooklyn. See ECF No. 18; see also Education Transcript, Ex. 1, ECF No. 18-1 at 3. He argues
`that these six courses should count toward his FSA credits , “as that corrected total will affect his
`total time spent in BOP custody at the RRC-halfway house.” ECF No. 18 at 3. The Court ordered
`Respondent to respond to this motion. Order, ECF No. 19.
`Respondent opposes Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and avers that these six
`courses “do not qualify for credit awards under the FSA .” ECF No. 20 at 4–5. Respondent also
`avers that the FSA does not authorize the application of earned time credits to the remainder of
`Petitioner’s term because Petitioner has already moved into RRC placement and has not been
`sentenced to post-release supervision. Id. at 1–3. In Petitioner’s reply, he contends that: (1) the
`BOP misinterprets the FSA’s application of time credits; (2) the courses completed at MDC qualify
`under FSA standards; and (3) the fact that he was not sentenced to a term of supervised release
`should not preclude application of earned credits. See Pet’r Reply, ECF No. 26.
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`The Court entered its order granting in part and denying in part the § 2241 petition on May
`15, 2025, and Petitioner filed his motion for reconsideration on May 22, 2025, seven days later.
`Petitioner did not specify under which procedural grounds he filed his motion for reconsideration.
`Because Petitioner is a pro se litigant and seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order within the
`required time frame under District of Connecticut Local Rule 7(c), the Court construes the motion
`as brought under that Rule.
`Local Rule 7(c) allows the filing of motions for reconsideration, but cautions that such
`motions “shall not be routinely filed and shall satisfy the strict standard applicable to such
`Case 3:25-cv-00300-SVN Document 27 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`motions.” D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1. “The standard for granting [reconsideration] is strict, and
`reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions
`or data that the court overlooked —matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to
`alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49,
`54 (2d Cir. 2019); see also D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1; Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170
`(2d Cir. 2021) (clea ned up) (reconsideration warranted “only when the party identifies an
`intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a
`clear error or prevent manifest injustice ”). A motion for reconsideration is “not a vehicle for
`relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits,
`or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple. ” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P. ,
`684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
`III. DISCUSSION
` In summary, Petitioner requests that the Court recalculate and order the BOP to apply credit
`under the FSA for six programs he completed between October 2, 2023, the date he was sentenced,
`and December 11, 2023, the date he arrived at FCI Danbury. See ECF No. 18. He requests these
`credits to reduce his total time spent in BOP custody at the RRC halfway house. See id. Although
`Petitioner has presented new evidence in the form of an educational transcript 5 demonstrating
`which courses he took during the relevant period, the Court concludes that BOP was not required
`to credit him for these programs. Thus, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
`
`5 Petitioner has not ex plained why he failed to provide the information about these courses in his earlier filings.
`Because he is a pro se litigant, however, the Court has examined the transcript and addresses the merits of his
`argument.
`Case 3:25-cv-00300-SVN Document 27 Filed 11/07/25 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`A. Petitioner’s Request for the BOP to Credit Six Courses under the FSA
`The FSA allows eligible prisoners to earn time credits for completing evidence -based
`recidivism reduction programming (“EBRR”) or productive activities (“PAs”). 18 U.S.C. §
`3632(d)(4)(A); see also id. §§ 3635(3), (5) (statutory definitions of “EBRR” and “PA”). The FSA
`authorizes the Attorney General to develop recommendations regarding EBRRs and PAs, conduct
`ongoing research and data analysis on such programming, and direct the BOP regarding approval
`of EBRRs and PAs for FSA time credits. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631(b)(2), (3); id. §§ 3633(a)(5)(A),
`(C) (“[T]he Attorney General shall ... direct the Bureau of Prisons regarding ... the addition of new
`effective [EBRRs] that the Attorney General finds.”). “In turn, the BOP has established a formal
`process for evaluating whether a program meets the criteria for being an EBRR or PA under 18
`U.S.C. § 3635.” Mohammed v. Stover, No. 23-CV-757 (SVN), 2024 WL 5146440, at *3 (D. Conn.
`Dec. 17, 2024) (citing to a declaration filed by a BOP employee in that action).
`Petitioner seeks credit for six programs that he completed during his post -sentencing
`detention at the MDC Brooklyn, before he arrived at FCI Danbury. See ECF No. 18. Specifically,
`he seeks credits for twelve-hour courses listed as Business Acumen, Time Management, Business
`Ethics, Developing Creativity, Soft Skills, and a ten-hour course for Commercial Driver’s License
`Test Prep, which he completed between October 30, 2023, and November 13, 2023. See ECF No.
`18 at 2; ECF No. 18-1. Respondent argues that “Petitioner has not demonstrated . . . that the six
`MDC courses he lists qualify as FSA credit-eligible, and none of the courses appear in the BOP’s
`FSA Programs Guide.” ECF No. 20 at 4. Respondent has also “reviewed Petitioner’s list [of
`courses] with BOP counsel and Case Management staff at FCI Danbury[,] [and the] BOP has
`confirmed that the programs are not recognized EBRR programs or PA classes.” Id. at 5.
`Case 3:25-cv-00300-SVN Document 27 Filed 11/07/25 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`The Court finds that with the limited information Petitioner has provided, his programs
`completed between October 30, 2023, and November 13, 2023, cannot be credited under the FSA.
`As an initial matter, Respondent’s briefing suggests that the Court lacks authority to determine
`what types of courses qualify as EBRRs and PAs. See ECF No. 20 at 5 n.3 (noting that Respondent
`“does not concede that the FSA authorizes the court to make [a] determination” as to the types of
`courses that qualify as EBRRs and PAs ). However, as this Court has observed, there appears to
`be no “part of the statutory text that unambiguously goes so far as to say that the Attorney General
`and the BOP have sole discretion to determine what qualifies as an EBRR or PA. ” Mohammed,
`2024 WL 5146440, at *3 (emphasis in original). Respondent does not cite to any authority holding
`as much. And in the Court’s review of applicable case law, “while ‘it is clearly with[in] the BOP’s
`discretion to determine what programs will be eligible for receipt of time credits upon successful’
`completion, Cohen v. Hudgins , No. 20 -cv-211, 2021 WL 6066667, at *4 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 28,
`2021), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 5565163 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 29, 2021),
`nothing appears to foreclose judicial review of these agency actions. ” Mohammed, 2024 WL
`5146440, at *4.
`Nor does Respondent’s reliance on the BOP’s FSA Approved Programs Guide foreclose
`judicial review of its decisions with respect to awarding FSA time credits for programming .
`Respondent cites to the FSA Frequently Asked Questions page of the BOP’s website, which
`provides that “[i]nmates only receive [FSA time credits] for participation in programs and
`activities directly assigned to them as qualifying evidence -based recidivism reduction
`programming or productive activities.” ECF No. 20 at 4 –5 (citing
`https://www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/faq.jsp#fsa_time_credits (last visited November 7,
`Case 3:25-cv-00300-SVN Document 27 Filed 11/07/25 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`2025)). Even assuming that there is a source of legal authority for this position—the cited website
`provides none—this court has ordered the BOP to award an inmate time credits for coursework
`not explicitly listed in the Programs Guide . See Akwuba v. Stover, No. 23-cv-01557 (MPS) (D.
`Conn. July 2, 2025), ECF No. 38. In Akwuba, the court found “that an activity does not have to
`be so designated but does have to be performed by the inmate with the consent of the BOP and
`otherwise meet the statutory definitions of EBRR or PA in order to qualify for time credits under
`the FSA. ” And “at least one other district court has awarded inmates FSA time credits for
`programs not explicitly approved by the BOP as EBRRs or PAs” in the FSA Approved Programs
`Guide. Mohammed, 2024 WL 5146440, at *4 (referencing Cazares v. Hendrix, 575 F. Supp. 3d
`1289, 1299–1300 (D. Or. 2021) (finding ambiguity in the statutory text regarding what qualifies
`as an EBRR or PA, and ordering the BOP to award inmate credit for completing programming not
`included in the FSA Approved Programs Guide)). Accordingly, as it did in Mohammed, the Court
`here assumes, without deciding, that it is not precluded from reviewing the BOP’s decisions
`regarding what types of courses qualify as EBRRs and PAs. Mohammed, 2024 WL 5146440, at
`*4 (reviewing courses completed by the petitioner that were not explicitly approved by the BOP
`as EBBRs or PAs to determine whether they could qualify for FSA credit).
`The Court cannot conclude, based on the information provided by Petitioner, that the six
`courses for which he seeks credit qualify as EBRRs or PAs under the statute. An EBRR is a group
`or individual activity that “has been shown by empirical evidence to reduce recidivism or is based
`on research indicating that it is likely to be effective in reducing recidivism,” is “designed to help
`prisoners succeed in their communities upon release from prison,” and may include many different
`types of courses. 18 U.S.C. § 3635(3). A PA is a group or individual activity that “is designed to
`Case 3:25-cv-00300-SVN Document 27 Filed 11/07/25 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`allow prisoners determined as having a minimum or low risk of recidivating to remain productive
`and thereby maintain a minimum or low risk of recidivating.” 18 U.S.C. § 3635(5).
`The Court rejects Petitioner’s arguments that the six programs he took at MDC Brooklyn
`“align with the statutory purpose of helping prisoners reintegrate into society and reduce
`recidivism.” ECF No. 26 at 2 . This general argument does not provide enough context for the
`Court to decide whether these six programs would qualify as EBRRs or PAs under the FSA and
`applicable regulations. Petitioner does not argue that empirical evidence has demonstrated that his
`programs on Business Acumen, Time Management, Business Ethics, Developing Creativity, Soft
`Skills, and Commercial Driver’s Licenses reduce recidivism or are likely to be effective in doing
`so; nor does Petitioner offer any information as to what these programs covered to aid the Court
`in assessing the programs’ eligibility.
`Thus, based on the limited information provided by Petitioner and the information offered
`by Respondent, the Court cannot find that these programs qualify as EBRRs or PAs under the FSA
`and the applicable regulations. While it appears from the name s of these courses that they
`addressed skills and attributes that may aid Petitioner’s success in the workplace, the Court is
`unable to discern how these six programs reduce recidivism or are likely to be effective in doing
`so, without additional context regarding what these programs entail.
`Additionally, Petitioner has not shown that the BOP consented to him participating in this
`coursework for FSA credit or that any of these programs have been submitted for EBRR/PA review
`under the BOP’s formal process. Nor has he provided any evidence that MDC Brooklyn, where
`he took the courses, has attempted to classify these courses as EBRRs or PAs. Therefore, with the
`limited information provided, the Court cannot find that the courses Petitioner completed between
`Case 3:25-cv-00300-SVN Document 27 Filed 11/07/25 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`October 30, 2023, and November 13, 2023, are sufficient to be credited under the FSA.
`B. Petitioner’s Request for Early Supervised Release or to Reduce Sentence
`Petitioner also requests that the six courses he completed be applied to reduce his total time
`spent in RRC custody. See ECF Nos. 18 at 3; 26 at 2–3. It is not clear whether Petitioner is seeking
`(i) to reduce his sentence by being released from RRC custody earlier than his release date, or (ii)
`requesting a release from RRC custody to a term of supervised release. In any event, the Court
`has already concluded that the six courses Petitioner took at MDC Brooklyn post-sentencing do
`not qualify for credits under the FSA. Even if these six courses did qualify for credits, however,
`the Court agrees with Respondent that Petitioner could not apply these additional credits to early
`release from RRC because Petitioner’s sentence does not include a term of post -release
`supervision. See United States v. Anuebunwa, 16-CR-575 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2023), ECF No. 114
`(Judgment) and ECF No. 121 (order dated Apr. 28, 2025, denying Petitioner’s motion for
`modification of sentence , which sought a three-month reduction in term of imprisonment and a
`term of supervised release).
`The FSA provides that time credits earned by “prisoners who successfully participate in
`recidivism reduction programs or productive activities shall be applied toward time in prerelease
`custody or supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(C). “Prerelease custody can be in the form
`of either home confinement or transfer to a residential reentry center.” Saleen v. Pullen, No. 3:23-
`CV-147 (AWT), 2023 WL 3603423, at *1 (D. Conn. Apr. 12, 2023). “The BOP, however, cannot
`apply FSA time credits toward an ear ly transfer to supervised release when an inmate’s sentence
`does not include a term of supervised release.” Pujols v. Stover, No. 3:23-CV-564 (SVN), 2023
`WL 4551423, at *2 (D. Conn. July 14, 2023); see also Saleen, 2023 WL 3603423, at *1 (declining
`Case 3:25-cv-00300-SVN Document 27 Filed 11/07/25 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`to apply FSA credits toward early transfer to supervised release because petitioner’s sentence did
`not include a term of supervised release).
`Finally, to the extent Petitioner is requesting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §
`3582(c), Petitioner must make th is request with the court that imposed h is sentence. See United
`States v. Avery, 807 F. App’x 74, 77 (2d Cir. 2020); see also United States v. De Jesus Sierra, No.
`10 CR 416 (VM), 2021 WL 354954, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2021) (explaining that “Congress
`amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) to provide the sentencing judge jurisdiction to consider a
`defense motion for Reduction in Sentence”). Petitioner was sentenced in the United States District
`Court for the Southern District of New York , not the United States District Court for the District
`of Connecticut . Accordingly, to the e xtent that Petitioner requests this Court to afford h im a
`sentence reduction, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his request.
`IV. CONCLUSION
` For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 18, is
`DENIED. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
`
`
`SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut, this 7th day of November, 2025.
`
`
`
` /s/ Sarala V. Nagala
`SARALA V. NAGALA
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Case 3:25-cv-00300-SVN Document 27 Filed 11/07/25 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`