which crimes are violent for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3621. The BOP, he argues, is under no compulsion to adopt the statutory definition of “crime of violence” contained in 18 U.S.C. § 16, nor must it accept the similar definition contained in the Sentencing Guidelines; rather, Congress’s grant of discretion to the BOP is broad enough to allow any interpretation which is reasonable. IV. Discussion This court agrees with Scibana. We begin with the proposition that the BOP and not the courts should run the country’s prisons. Prison officials are the experts in the field; they are the ones with the knowledge and experience necessary to make practical and reasoned decisions in matters of prison administration. See In re Long Term Administrative Segregation, 174 F.3d 464 (4th Cir.1999), (<HOLDING>). Congress implicitly recognized this
holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population holding that the evaluation of penalogical objectives is committed to the considered judgment of prison administrators holding a publisheronly rule was constitutional because prison administrators are accorded deference and rule was reasonably related to the penological interest of maintaining internal prison security holding that where challenged decision is based on experience of prison administrators and where the states interest implicates the safety of other inmates and prison personnel due process is satisfied by informal nonadversary procedures holding that under the mailbox rule the date that a motion is placed into the hands of prison officials for filing is the date that the motion is considered filed