United States v. Shroyer

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NICOLE DIANE SHROYER, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA BIG STONE GAP DIVISION

Date published: Oct 18, 2017

Case No. 2:17CR00003 (W.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 2:17CR00003

10-18-2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NICOLE DIANE SHROYER, Defendant.

Nicole Diane Shroyer, Pro Se Defendant.

By: James P. Jones United States District Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

Nicole Diane Shroyer, Pro Se Defendant.

The defendant, Nicole Diane Shroyer, a federal inmate sentenced by this court, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion for a judicial recommendation that she be placed in a halfway house for six to twelve months preceding her release. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.

On May 9, 2017, Shroyer was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of twenty-four months for her conviction for conspiracy to provide methamphetamine to a prison inmate, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.

I decline to recommend that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") amend the manner in which the defendant serves her sentence. 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, 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"). I believe that the BOP is in the best position to make this determination without advice from the court.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's motion (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.

ENTER: October 18, 2017

/s/ James P. Jones

United States District Judge