
    Steven David MONTAGUE, Petitioner-Appellant v. John B. FOX, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-40227
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 1, 2010.
    Steven David Montague, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Michael Wayne Lockhart, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and SMITH and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Steven David Montague, federal prisoner # 10601-081, was convicted of several counts of possession of a firearm by a felon and of possession of a controlled substance. He appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the Bureau of Prisons’s (BOP) method of calculating his good conduct time (GCT) credit under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b).

In Sample v. Morrison, 406 F.3d 310, 312 (5th Cir.2005), we held that, where the prisoner was not claiming he was immediately eligible for release, we lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal of his § 2241 petition challenging the BOP’s calculation of GCT credit under § 3624(b). We concluded that the petition was not ripe because the prisoner had not established that he would sustain immediate injury that could be redressed by the relief requested. Id.

Montague requests the same relief as the petitioner in Sample. However, whether Montague’s projected release date is computed on the basis of the BOP’s interpretation or his own, he is not yet entitled to release. Thus, like the petitioner in Sample, Montague’s petition is not ripe for review, and the instant appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Sample, 406 F.3d at 312. Moreover, even if Montague’s request for relief were not premature, his argument is foreclosed. See Barber v. Thomas, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2499, 2504, 177 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010); Moreland v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 431 F.3d 180, 186 (5th Cir.2005).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     