presentenee defendants and postsentence convicts may be in the same halfway house and subjected to identical conditions, we conclude that they are not similarly situated legally because their residence in a halfway house serves a fundamentally and functionally different purpose. Thus, it is not the type of detention, but the respective difference in legal status that is disposi-tive. The consequent divergent sentence credit treatment results directly from the different legal status occupied by pretrial, presentence defendants and postsentence convicts. Therefore, the BOP does not violate equal protection in according sentence credit to postsentenee convicts, but not to pretrial or presentence defendants. See Fraley v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION Dawson has challenged the
holding that a presentence defendant is not similarly situated with a postsentence convict and denial of sentence credit does not violate equal protection holding that the cap does not violate equal protection holding members of two distinct pension plans were not similarly situated for equal protection analysis holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding equal protection under the federal constitution applies to similarly situated persons