Opinion
Case No. 1:18-cr-20522
2023-06-27
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Terry JOHNSON III, Defendant.
Christopher Rawsthorne, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Flint, MI, for Plaintiff.
Christopher Rawsthorne, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Flint, MI, for Plaintiff. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER RECOMMENDING PLACEMENT IN RESIDENTIAL REENTRY CENTER AND HOME CONFINEMENT
Defendant Terry Johnson III pleaded guilty to sex trafficking of children in July 2019, ECF Nos. 27; 30, and was sentenced to 150 months' imprisonment followed by 5 years of supervised release, ECF No. 33. In February 2021, his prison term was reduced to 105 months. ECF No. 40 (sealed).
On May 30, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for this Court to recommend that he be placed in a residential reentry center and home confinement during the last 12 months of his sentence. ECF No. 41.
However, as Defendant acknowledges, the decision regarding such placement lies within the sole discretion of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Id. at PageID.146; accord 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b), 3624(c). Although the BOP may consider the sentencing court's recommendations, they do not bind the BOP decision with respect to the place of imprisonment. United States v. Stinson, 15-CR-20242, 2022 WL 866392, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2022). And any such recommendations must be made at the time of sentencing—not afterward. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (referring to "the factors described in the preceding sentence"). Thus, a post-sentencing order recommending placement is tantamount to an advisory opinion.
Federal courts are limited to resolving actual cases and controversies," U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, so they may not issue judgments on theoretical or advisory disputes, Safety Specialty Ins. v. Genesee Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 53 F.4th 1014, 1020 (6th Cir. 2022) (citing Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552, 562 (6th Cir. 2002)); Saginaw Cnty. v. STAT Emergency Med. Servs., 946 F.3d 951, 954 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 101-03, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)). Because this Court lacks the authority to issue an advisory opinion, Defendant's request for a placement recommendation must be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Order Recommending Placement in Residential Reentry Center and Home Confinement, ECF No. 41, is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
This is a final order.