The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision in favor of the Warden of Federal Correctional Institution - Cumberland in a case involving First Step Act time credits, according to a published opinion issued Jan. 13, 2026.
The case, *White v. Warden of Federal Correctional Institution - Cumberland*, centered on federal inmate William A. White's challenge to the Bureau of Prisons' failure to provide programming that would have allowed him to earn time credits under the First Step Act during a brief transfer period between facilities.
White filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the BOP violated his rights by not providing First Step Act programming during a three-day period while he was housed in a federal transfer center during his move from one federal prison to another.
The First Step Act of 2018 entitles federal prisoners to earn jail-time credits for participating in specified programming administered by the Bureau of Prisons that is designed to reduce their risk of recidivism. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4), inmates can earn these credits through evidence-based recidivism reduction programming.
In a 2-1 decision, the Fourth Circuit panel affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland's ruling against White. Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III. Judge Robert Bruce King wrote a dissenting opinion, indicating significant disagreement among the appellate judges about the legal issues presented.
The case was argued before the Fourth Circuit on Sept. 9, 2025, with oral arguments held nearly four months before the court issued its written opinion. The original district court case was presided over by Senior District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow in Baltimore.
White was represented by attorneys from the Office of the Federal Public Defender, including Claire Victoria Madill, who argued the case, along with Federal Public Defender James Wyda and Assistant Federal Public Defender Patricia L. Richman from the Greenbelt, Maryland office.
The government was represented by attorneys from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland, including Beatrice Campbell Thomas, who argued the case, and U.S. Attorney Kelly O. Hayes from the Baltimore office.
The case raises important questions about federal prisoners' rights under the First Step Act, particularly regarding the Bureau of Prisons' obligations to provide programming during temporary housing situations such as transfers between facilities. The First Step Act, signed into law in 2018, represented the most significant criminal justice reform legislation in decades and included provisions allowing federal prisoners to earn time credits toward early release.
Under the Act's provisions, prisoners can earn up to 15 days of credit for every 30 days of successful participation in evidence-based recidivism reduction programming. These credits can be applied toward placement in prerelease custody, including halfway houses or home confinement.
White's case specifically challenged whether the three-day gap in programming availability during his transfer violated his rights under the statute. Transfer centers are temporary facilities where inmates are housed during moves between federal institutions, and programming availability at such facilities can be limited compared to permanent prison assignments.
The split decision suggests the legal issues involved are complex and may warrant further judicial review. Dissenting opinions in federal appeals courts often signal areas where the law is unsettled or where reasonable judges can disagree about statutory interpretation.
The case number 23-7116 indicates the appeal was filed in 2023, meaning the litigation has been ongoing for approximately three years from initial filing to final appellate resolution. The district court case was originally filed as 1:22-cv-02371-DKC, showing it began in 2022.
The Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, meaning this decision will serve as binding precedent for similar First Step Act challenges in federal prisons throughout the region.
The published nature of the opinion means it will be included in official court reporters and can be cited as precedent in future cases. Published opinions typically address novel legal questions or issues of broad significance to the federal prison system.
This decision comes as federal courts continue to grapple with various aspects of First Step Act implementation, including disputes over programming availability, credit calculations, and eligibility determinations. The Bureau of Prisons has faced ongoing challenges in implementing the Act's requirements across the federal prison system.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between prisoners' rights advocates who seek broad interpretation of First Step Act benefits and prison officials who must balance programming requirements with operational constraints including transfers, security concerns, and resource limitations.