United States v. Delacruz

21 Citing cases

  1. Dennis v. Sage

    Civil Action 4:24-CV-00059 (M.D. Pa. May. 1, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Once judicially committed to the custody of the BOP, the Attorney General, acting through the BOP, is responsible for calculating the duration and location of service of an offender's sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a), (b); 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c); see also United States v. Delacruz, No. 17-77, 2020 WL 3405723, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 19, 2020) (“[T]he Court is without authority to control the BOP's placement of Defendant-the Court can neither directly assign Defendant to home confinement nor direct the BOP to do so.”).

  2. Gomez v. Sage

    CIVIL 1:24-CV-00032 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 26, 2024)

    See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a), (b); 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c); see also United States v. Delacruz, NO. 17-77, 2020 WL 3405723, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 19, 2020) (“[T]he Court is without authority to control the BOP's placement of Defendant-the Court can neither directly assign Defendant to home confinement nor direct the BOP to do so.”).

  3. Banks v. Quay

    Civil Action 1:21-CV-988 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 17, 2021)

    See Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 251 (3d Cir. 2005). See also United States v. Delacruz, 2020 WL 3405723, *4 (M.D. Pa. June 19, 2020) (“[T]he Court is without authority to control the BOP's placement of Defendant-the Court can neither directly assign Defendant to home confinement nor direct the BOP to do so.”).

  4. United States v. Rowe

    Crim. 1:16-CR-00210 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 13, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Insofar as Mr. Rowe seeks to serve the remainder of his sentence in home confinement pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”), Pub. L. 116-136, § 12003, his motion is also denied. See United States v. Cruz, 455 F.Supp.3d 154, 159 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (holding that “the determination of which inmates qualify for home confinement under the CARES Act is with the BOP Director, ” and not the federal sentencing court); see also United States v. Delacruz, No. 3:17-CR-201, 2020 WL 3405723, at *4 (M.D. Pa. June 19, 2020) (“The determination of an inmate's place of incarceration is committed to the discretion of the BOP director.”) (citations omitted). AND NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Mr. Rowe's second motion for compassionate release and reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Doc. 134) is DENIED.

  5. United States v. Hardison

    CRIMINAL ACTION 18-168 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 9, 2021)

    “District Courts considering the CARES Act § 12003 and the Attorney General's directive consistently conclude that the determination of which inmates qualify for home confinement under the CARES Act is with the BOP Director.” United States v. Torres, No. 18-cr-414, 2020 WL 3498156, at *6 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 2020) (quoting United States v. Delacruz, No. 17-cr-77, 17-cr-201, 2020 WL 3405723, at * 5 (M.D. Pa. June 19, 2020)). See also United States v. Pettiway, No. 08-cr-129, 2020 WL 3469043, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2020) (noting that discretion to order home confinement “rests solely with the Attorney General and the BOP Director”).

  6. United States v. Gross

    Crim. 1:16-CR-00178 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 21, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Insofar as Mr. Gross seeks to serve the remainder of his sentence in home confinement pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”), Pub. L. 116136, § 12003, his motion is denied. See United States v. Cruz, 455 F.Supp.3d 154, 159 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (holding that “the determination of which inmates qualify for home confinement under the CARES Act is with the BOP Director, ” and not the federal sentencing court); see also United States v. Delacruz, No. 3:17-CR-201, 2020 WL 3405723, at *4 (M.D. Pa. June 19, 2020) (“The determination of an inmate's place of incarceration is committed to the discretion of the BOP director.”) (citations omitted). AND NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Mr. Gross' successive motion for compassionate release and reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Doc. 105) is DENIED.

  7. Johnson v. Bradley

    Civil No. 1:21-CV-0017 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 6, 2021)

    Once judicially committed to the custody of the BOP, the Attorney General, acting through the BOP, is responsible for calculating the duration and location of service of an offender's sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a), (b); 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c); see also United States v. Delacruz, NO. 17-77, 2020 WL 3405723, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 19, 2020) (“[T]he Court is without authority to control the BOP's placement of Defendant-the Court can neither directly assign Defendant to home confinement nor direct the BOP to do so.”). The Second Chance Act of 2007 permits eligible inmates the opportunity to serve some or all of the final twelve months of their sentence in a community correctional facility, also known as a halfway house, or RCC.

  8. Gilmore v. Quay

    No. 4:20-CV-01291 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2021)

    This request, however, must also be denied. The discretion to release a prisoner to home confinement lies solely with the Attorney General."); United States v. Delacruz, 2020 WL 3405723, *4 (M.D. Pa. June 19, 2020) ("[T]he Court is without authority to control the BOP's placement of Defendant—the Court can neither directly assign Defendant to home confinement nor direct the BOP to do so.").Moore v. United States Att'y Gen., 473 F.2d 1375, 1376 (5th Cir. 1973); Ledesma v. United States, 445 F.2d 1323, 1324 (5th Cir. 1971). On April 9, 2008, the Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub.L. No. 110-199, Title II, § 251, 122 Stat. 657, 697, codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621, 3624, went into effect.

  9. United States v. Kraynak

    3:17-CR-188 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Declining to issue recommendation to BOP based on the facts "underlying facts of defendant's conviction"

    See 18 U.S.C. §3621(b); 18 U.S.C. §3624(c). See alsoUnited States v. Delacruz, 2020 WL 3405723, *4 (M.D. Pa. June 19, 2020) ("[T]he Court is without authority to control the BOP's placement of Defendant—the Court can neither directly assign Defendant to home confinement nor direct the BOP to do so."). As the government explains in its response, (Doc. 768 at 2):

  10. United States v. Biggs

    3:16-CR-338 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2020)

    See 18 U.S.C. §3621(b); 18 U.S.C. §3624(c). See alsoUnited States v. Delacruz, 2020 WL 3405723, *4 (M.D. Pa. June 19, 2020) ("[T]he Court is without authority to control the BOP's placement of Defendant—the Court can neither directly assign Defendant to home confinement nor direct the BOP to do so."); United States v. Powell, 2020 WL 2848190, *2 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2020) ("[T]o the extent that [defendant] seeks to appeal the prison's denial of home confinement, such decision is not reviewable by this Court.") (citing 18 U.S.C. §3621 ("[A] designation of a place of imprisonment ... is not reviewable by any court.")). Defendant is currently serving a 57-month prison sentence that was imposed by this court on June 15, 2017, after he pled guilty to assault with a weapon while he was incarcerated for other convictions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §113(a).