Opinion
Case No. 3:06-cr-038.
September 15, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Defendant's second pro se Motion to Enforce 18 U.S.C. § 4083 and Place Defendant on Home Confinement (Doc. No. 14).
The Motion appears to be almost entirely a copy of the prior Motion to Enforce (Doc. No. 12) except that the name of the Magistrate Judge has been replaced in the caption by that of United States District Judge Walter Rice and Defendant has added language on page 4 to indicate that the Magistrate Judge in Defendant's words "denied motion against the Sixth Circuit, and in the process, adopted a broader standard of law."
Defendant's Motion was denied for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge's Decision and Order of August 31, 2006 (Doc. No. 13), which expanded at some length on the prior decision, which was based on an informal letter. Basically, Defendant complains that he is confined to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and seems to believe that any such confinement violates the proscription in 18 U.S.C. § 4083 of incarcerating misdemeanants in penitentiaries. As explained in the August 31, 2006, Decision and Order, Mr. Campbell is not confined in a penitentiary, but in a federal correctional institution. His claim under § 4083 is therefore without merit.
As noted previously, Defendant's allegations that his counsel did not appropriately plead his case could be considered by this Court on a Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, the Court cannot convert a motion otherwise captioned to a § 2255 motion, as provided in pertinent Supreme Court law.
Finally, this case is not in any way assigned to District Judge Rice. If Defendant's intention is to appeal from the Magistrate Judge's ruling, any such appeal, assuming it is timely, must be clearly labeled as a notice of appeal and will be assigned to the District Judge presently exercising supervision of the grand jury.