Opinion
NO: 5:07-CR-00140-BR
10-19-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. EMIL BORTEY STEWART
ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendant's letter filed 11 August 2016. (DE # 115.) In the letter, defendant requests that the court recommend him for the maximum halfway house term of 12 months. Another district court recently explained in response to a similar request:
While I commend the defendant for his efforts to become a productive citizen upon his release from incarceration, this court is without authority to grant the defendant's motion. A district court's authority to amend a defendant's sentence is limited. A district court "may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed" unless the BOP moves for a reduction, the Sentencing Commission amends the applicable guideline range, or Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or another statute expressly permits the court to do so. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see also United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2010). None of these circumstances are present in the instant case.
Further, I decline to recommend that the BOP amend the manner in which the defendant serves his sentence. In the first place, the BOP has exclusive statutory authority over a prisoner's place of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); see also United States v. Swisher, No. 3:11-CR-67 (Bailey), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40190, at *1 (N.D. W. Va. Mar. 22, 2013). While the Second Chance Act expands the BOP's authority to place prisoners in a halfway house, it does not vest that authority in this court. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1); see also United States v. Squire, No. 3:09-502-JFA, 2012 WL 3848364, at *1 (D.S.C. Sept. 5, 2012). The BOP has sole discretion in deciding whether to place a prisoner in a halfway house, and if so, for how long. See Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 251 (3rd Cir. 2005) (holding that the BOP must analyze the five factors in § 3621(b) and "that the BOP may assign a prisoner to a [halfway house] does not mean that it must").
Moreover, while nothing prevents this court from making a recommendation, I believe that the BOP is in the best position to determine the proper placement of the defendant.United States v. Statzer, No. 1:08CR00024-020, 2016 WL 5940926, at *1-2 (W.D. Va. Oct. 13, 2016) (alteration in original).
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's 11 August 2016 letter, to the extent it could be deemed a motion, is DENIED.
This 19 October 2016.
/s/_________
W. Earl Britt
Senior U.S. District Judge