Opinion
12-cr-00818-PJH-1
07-08-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROYLAND RICE, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION
Re: Dkt. No. 202
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge
The defendant in the above-captioned case has filed a motion styled as a “motion for home confinement pilot program.” See Dkt. 202. Defendant's motion does not identify any statutory or other authority for filing a motion for home confinement. Rather, the only statutory authority identified in the motion is 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), covering motions for compassionate release. Dkt. 202 at 2. And indeed, the bulk of defendant's filing relates to issues that would be properly raised in the context of a compassionate release motion, including the applicability of the United States Sentencing Commission's policy statement. Id. at 3-10.
However, defendant's filing is not properly brought under section 3582. It does not address all of the requirements for a compassionate release motion, including whether defendant exhausted his administrative remedies, whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant release, and whether release would be consistent with the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
Accordingly, defendant's “motion for home confinement pilot program” (Dkt. 202) is DENIED. As stated in the court's previous order, defendant may still file a motion for compassionate release under section 3582 that meets all of the statutory requirements, including exhaustion of administrative remedies. See Dkt. 201.
IT IS SO ORDERED.