
    Andrew Steven GRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Marion FEATHER, Warden, FDC Seatac; Dr. Robert Lone, RDAP Coordinator, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 12-35197.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
    
    Filed Sept. 26, 2013.
    Andrew Steven Gray Sheridan, OR, pro se.
    Lissa Shook, Esquire, FPDWA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Kristin Berger Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Andrew Steven Gray appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a section 2241 habeas petition, Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.

Gray challenges a Bureau of Prisons rule categorically excluding inmates convicted of offenses involving “the carrying, possession, or use of a firearm” from eligibility for early release following completion of a Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program. See 28 C.F.R. § 550.55(b)(5)(ii) (2009). Gray’s claim is foreclosed by our decision in Peck v. Thomas, in which we upheld the challenged rule as procedurally valid under Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act. 697 F.3d 767, 772-73 (9th Cir.2012), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1289, 185 L.Ed.2d 220 (2013). Contrary to Gray’s contention, Peck does not conflict with our earlier decisions in Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2008), and Crickon v. Thomas, 579 F.3d 978 (9th Cir.2009).

Gray’s motion to file the supplemental brief submitted on March 5, 2013, is granted. The arguments raised in the supplemental brief do not change our analysis.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     