Opinion
Case No. 1:15CR00022-001
02-17-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSHUA AUSTIN, Defendant.
Joshua Austin, Pro Se Movant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Joshua Austin, Pro Se Movant.
The defendant, sentenced to imprisonment by this court on November 18, 2015, has filed a pro se motion entitled "Motion Requesting a Judicial Recommendation Concerning Length of RRC/Halfway House Placement." He contends that his current release date is October 5, 2017, and that a placement for nine months in a residential reentry center would assist him in his rehabilitation.
I decline the defendant's request. 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").
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.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's motion (ECF No. 34) is DENIED.
ENTER: February 17, 2017
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge