Opinion
Criminal No. 17-298(3) ADM/KMM
11-30-2020
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Casey Jemar Davis, Defendant.
Casey Jemar Davis, pro se.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Casey Jemar Davis, pro se.
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Defendant Casey Jemar Davis' ("Davis") pro se Motion Requesting Judicial Recommendation [Docket No. 435]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
II. DISCUSSION
On February 27, 2018, Davis entered a plea of guilty to conspiring with other felons to possess firearms. Plea Agreement [Docket No. 190]. On June 27, 2018, Davis was sentenced to a prison term of 50 months. Sentencing J. [Docket No. 331] at 2. Davis is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute in Sandstone, Minnesota. His projected release date is January 6, 2022. See Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last accessed Nov. 30, 2020).
Davis now seeks a judicial recommendation from this Court to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to place him in a residential reentry center ("RRC") for the maximum possible duration prior to the end of his sentence.
The authority to determine the placement of prisoners rests solely with the BOP. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) ("The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner's imprisonment . . . ."). The BOP is directed by statute "to transfer prisoners to a residential reentry center ("RRC") as they approach the end of their sentences, in an effort to better prepare the inmates for reentry in the community." United States v. Holcomb, No. CR 01-00218, 2018 WL 1896542, at *1 (D. N.M. Apr. 18, 2018) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)). The Second Chance Act of 2007 increased a federal prisoner's eligibility for prerelease placement in an RRC from 6 months to 12 months. United States v. Crawford, No. 8:11CR353, 2020 WL 1074831, at *1 (D. Neb. Mar. 4, 2020) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1)). In exercising its authority to determine an individual prisoner's RRC placement, one factor considered by the BOP is "any statement by the court that imposed the sentence . . . recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate." 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B). However, a judicial recommendation has "no binding effect on the authority of the [BOP] . . . to determine or change the place of imprisonment of that person." 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).
Here, the Court declines to give a recommendation as over two years has elapsed since Davis was sentenced. The BOP is now in the better position to determine whether and for how long Davis should be placed in an RRC.
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Casey Jemar Davis' pro se Motion Requesting Judicial Recommendation [Docket No. 435] is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT COURT Dated: November 30, 2020