of marijuana), and 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)© (money laundering). Petitioner contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction of up to one year for having completed a residential drug abuse program. He complains that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is illegally denying him eligibility for this sentence credit based on its erroneous determination that his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is not a “nonviolent offense,” as required for eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). 1. STANDARD OF REVIEW Significant deference is due regulations promulgated in accordance with the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) (<HOLDING>). However, Congress explicitly excluded 18
holding the court will not disturb the decision of the abcmr unless it was arbitrary capricious contrary to law or unsupported by substantial evidence holding that regulations promulgated pursuant to an express congressional grant of rulemaking authority will be upheld unless they are arbitrary capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute holding that policies whether governmental or private are not contrary to the disparateimpact requirement unless they are artificial arbitrary and unnecessary barriers holding that legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute holding that under chevron step two courts may not disturb an agency rule unless it is arbitrary or capricious in substance or manifestly contrary to the statute internal quotations omitted