construction of § 3621(e) to categorically exclude an inmate with a prior robbery conviction from early release eligibility, but allow an inmate with a current conviction for robbery to be eligible for a sentence reduction. The court concludes that the BOP’s determination in August 1995 that plaintiff was eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3621(e) was an impermissible construction of that statute and of the original version of 28 CFR § 550.58 because bank robbery is not a nonviolent offense. Accordingly, the court need not decide whether the BOP may apply the revised regulation and PS 5162.04 to Petitioner retroactively because Petitioner was never eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3621(e). Martinez, 164 F.3d at 1259; see, also, Royal, 141 F.3d at 602-03 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). B. Equitable Estoppel Petitioner also argues
holding that because bops notification to petitioner that he was eligible for a sentence reduction was erroneous his status was not retroactively changed by the application of the new regulation holding that prisoner could not file a petition for mandamus challenging the bops determination that he was ineligible to be considered for a reduction in his sentence although bourkes success on this claim would not necessarily result in his being released any earlier it would raise that possibility and thus have a probabilistic impact upon the duration of his custody holding that under section 9543a1 a pcra petitioner is not eligible for relief where the petitioner has completed serving the sentence before final adjudication on the petition recognizing that a reversal for ineffective assistance would be in order if the defendant had pled guilty solely in reliance upon his counsels erroneous advice that he would be eligible for parole in onethird the time he received for sentence holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case