Scott FARAH, Appellant v. WARDEN LORETTO FCI; United States Department of Justice; President United States of America; Attorney General United States of America, 613 F. App'x 204

OPINION PER CURIAM. Scott Farah is a federal prisoner serving a sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. He is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Loret-to, Pennsylvania. Farah is one of at least fourteen Loretto inmates who have filed virtually identical habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of their confinement.

Like those other inmates, Farah argues that the Bureau of Prisons has failed to provide a mechanism for “non-medical” reductions in sentences and that, under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, its alleged failure to do so invalidates his sentence and requires his immediate release from prison. We have affirmed the District Court’s denial of twelve of these petitions. See Saunders v. President U.S., 588 Fed.Appx. 207 (3d Cir.2015) (Nos. 14-2822 & 14-4159); Belt v. President U.S., 582 Fed.Appx. 91 (3d Cir.2014) (No. 14-3095); Voelzke v.

President U.S., 582 Fed.Appx. 89 (3d Cir.2014) (Nos. 14-3310, 14-3327 & 14-3329); Hendricks v. President U.S., 575 Fed.Appx. 19 (3d Cir.2014) (Nos. 14-2702 through 142708). (We dismissed a thirteenth related appeal as untimely at No. 14-3508.) Farah’s petition is substantively identical to the eight petitions we addressed in Saunders and Hendricks (though it lacks the additional claim we addressed in Belt and Voelzke). Farah too appeals from the District Court’s order denying his petition. Appel-lees have filed a motion for

summary action, to which Farah has not responded. This appeal presents no substantial question for the reasons we already have explained in addressing the substantively identical petitions noted above. For those reasons, appellees’ motion is granted and we will affirm. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 (2010); 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.