U.S. v. Serrato

13 Citing cases

  1. Albrecht v. Sanders

    2:06CV00111 JTR (E.D. Ark. Dec. 20, 2007)

    BOP funded the Program with lump-sum congressional appropriations. United States. v. Serrato, 2005 WL 1661831, *1 (D. Or. 2005). Following a budget shortfall in Fiscal Year 2004, and studies leading BOP to conclude that the Program was not effective in reducing recidivism, BOP decided to phase out the program.

  2. DeJesus v. U.S.

    04-CR-82S, 05-CV-655S (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2006)

    The ICCP program was, in fact, available at the time Petitioner was sentenced, so this is not a case where the court relied on false or unreliable information when imposing sentence. See LeClaire v. United States, No. 2:02 CR 128, 2006 W L 978707, at *3 (D.Vt. Apr. 10, 2006) (finding that if the ICCP was in effect at the time of sentencing, there was no reliance upon misinformation, and thus, no due process violation) (citing United States v. Serrato, 2005 W L 1661831, at *5 (D.Or. July 14, 2005)). Accordingly, there is no Due Process violation.

  3. Roman v. LaManna

    Civil Action No. 8:05-2806-MBS-BHH (D.S.C. Jul. 24, 2006)

    Instead, Congress allocated a lump-sum to the BOP. See United States v. Serrato, 2005 WL 1661831, *1 (D.Or. 2005). Under these circumstances, the BOP's decision to allocate its resources as it sees fit is within its discretion and the BOP's decision to terminate the ICC program for budgetary reasons is not subject to judicial review.

  4. Tekletsion v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

    Civil Action No. H-05-2505 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2006)

    Several courts have dismissed petitions challenging the BOP's cancellation of the ICC Program brought under § 2255 on the grounds that the petitions should have been brought under § 2241. See, e.g., United States v. Wiggins, 2005 WL 3216754 (N.D. Ill. 2005); Mendez v. United States, 2005 WL 2371979 (W.D. Tex. 2005); United States v. Serrato, 2005 WL 1661831 (D. Or. 2005) (all holding that petitions complaining of the BOP's cancellation of the ICC Program should be brought under § 2241). At least two courts have granted relief under § 2255.See United States v. McClean 2005 WL 2371990 (D. Or. 2005);United States v. Coleman, 2005 WL 233825 (D. Conn. 2005) (both granting § 2255 petitions because the courts relied on the fact that the ICC Program was an option that the petitioners would be considered for).

  5. Deanda v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

    Civil Action No. H-05-3032 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    Several courts have dismissed petitions challenging the BOP's cancellation of the ICC Program brought under § 2255 on the grounds that the petitions should have been brought under § 2241. See, e.g., United States v. Wiggins, 2005 WL 3216754 (N.D. Ill. 2005); Mendez v. United States, 2005 WL 2371979 (W.D. Tex. 2005); United States v. Serrato, 2005 WL 1661831 (D. Or. 2005) (all holding that petitions complaining of the BOP's cancellation of the ICC Program should be brought under § 2241). At least two courts have granted relief under § 2255.See United States v. McClean 2005 WL 2371990 (D. Or. 2005);United States v. Coleman, 2005 WL 233825 (D. Conn. 2005) (both granting § 2255 petitions because the courts relied on the fact that the ICC Program was an option that the petitioners would be considered for).

  6. Chamberlain v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

    Civil Action H-05-2614 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2006)

    Several courts have dismissed petitions challenging the BOP's cancellation of the ICC Program brought under § 2255 on the grounds that the petitions should have been brought under § 2241. See, e.g., United States v. Wiggins, 2005 WL 3216754 (N.D. Ill. 2005); Mendez v. United States, 2005 WL 2371979 (W.D. Tex. 2005); United States v. Serrato, 2005 WL 1661831 (D. Or. 2005) (all holding that petitions complaining of the BOP's cancellation of the ICC Program should be brought under § 2241). At least two courts have granted relief under § 2255.See United States v. McClean 2005 WL 2371990 (D. Or. 2005);United States v. Coleman, 2005 WL 233825 (D. Conn. 2005) (both granting § 2255 petitions because the courts relied on the fact that the ICC Program was an option that the petitioners would be considered for).

  7. Almanza v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

    Civil Action No. H-05-2823 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2006)   Cited 5 times

    Congress instead allocated funds to the BOP on a lump-sum basis. See United States v. Serrato, 2005 WL 1661831, *1 (D. Or. July 14, 2005). Under these circumstances, the BOP's decision to allocate its resources elsewhere as it sees fit is within its discretion and, therefore, its decision to terminate the boot camp program for budgetary reasons is not subject to judicial review under the APA.

  8. Cisneros v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

    Civil Action No. H-05-3494 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2005)

    Congress instead allocated funds to the BOP on a lump-sum basis. See United States v. Serrato, 2005 WL 1661831, *1 (D. Or. July 14, 2005). Under these circumstances, the BOP's decision to allocate its resources elsewhere as it sees fit is within its discretion and, therefore, its decision to terminate the boot camp program for budgetary reasons is not subject to judicial review under the APA.

  9. Palomino v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

    408 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D. Tex. 2005)   Cited 8 times

    Congress instead allocated funds to the BOP on a lump-sum basis. See United States v. Serrato, 2005 WL 1661831, *1 (D. Or. July 14, 2005). Under these circumstances, the BOP's decision to allocate its resources elsewhere as it sees fit is within its discretion and, therefore, its decision to terminate the boot camp program for budgetary reasons is not subject to judicial review under the APA.

  10. Mares v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

    401 F. Supp. 2d 775 (S.D. Tex. 2005)   Cited 7 times

    The BOP funded the program with lump-sum congressional appropriations. U.S.A. v. Serrato, 2005 WL 1661831, *1 (D.Or. 2005). The BOP's cancellation of the program is a general statement of BOP policy.