ORDER

JAMES G. CARR, Sr. District Judge.

Defendant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A. His base offense level was 43 (deemed 52 for sentencing purposes). Defendant had never been arrested before this offense, but received a criminal history category of IV due to the nature of the crime. This resulted in a Guideline Range of 360 months to life imprisonment.

I sentenced defendant on June 10, 2010, to a term of 120 months, with three years supervised release to follow. The defendant's "out date" is August 17, 2018.

He has filed a pro se "Motion Requesting a Judicial Recommendation Concerning Length of RRC/Halfway House Placement." (Doc. 207). The government opposes the motion. (Doc. 208).1

For the reasons that follow, I grant the motion and recommend that the Bureau of Prisons forthwith arrange for the defendant's release to a halfway house in his hometown, Chicago.

Discussion

Title18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1) authorizes the Bureau's Director to assign an inmate during the last months of his term (not to exceed twelve months) to a halfway house:

Halfway house placement is "a mechanism to reduce recidivism." (Doc. 207, Ex. 2 (Bureau of Prisons Director's Memorandum for Chief Executive Officers: "Revised Guidance for Residential Reentry Center (RRC) Placements")). The Second Chance Act instructs that an inmate's placement should be "of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration in the community." 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(6)(C). Although the Director is ultimately responsible for defendant's placement, the Bureau must consider "any statement" I make "recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate." See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B).

The government's principal contention appears to be that the defendant, in light of the nature of his conviction, deserves no leniency and should not return to his home community until the latest date (usually six months prior to expiration of the term) as of which the Bureau would place him in the halfway house to prepare for release from custody.

First: the government says I do not know what the defendant's conduct has been in prison. So saying, the government ignores the courses that defendant has taken on subjects as diverse as Aquiculture and Organic Farming to Computer Applications, Financial Literacy, and Technology 101 to Stress Management and Decision-Making to College Correspondence Courses and Spanish.

More to the point, the government offers no evidence as to the defendant's conduct, good or bad, while in custody. But the government certainly could have found out what his record as an inmate was. Its silence in that regard is telling.

Second: with an "out date" one month short of two years before his imposed term ends on July 12, 2020, it is readily apparent that the defendant has substantial good time credit.2

That fact, like the government's silence, is telling. Indeed, it suggests that the professed ignorance about the defendant's conduct in prison is not just telling; it appears disingenuous.

Admittedly, the defendant's crime was serious. I took that fact expressly into account at sentencing. I suggest, though, that now is not the time to give, as the government does, too much heed to that factor.

What really matters at this point is assessment of what, if any risk, the defendant poses to the community. Given his apparent rehabilitation, as evidenced by his good time credit and educational pursuits, further imprisonment is simply punitive.

Punishment for punishment's sake is not a § 3553(a) factor.

Nor should or could it be in a penal system in the service of the Rule of Law. Demanding that the defendant remain in prison until the last grain of sand in the hour glass has run down, the government, it seems to me, has no real motivation other than punishment.

To be sure, the government professes concern about community safety. While that is, of course, a core concern, the government offers nothing to substantiate its apprehension.

The defendant will return to Chicago at some point. Is there any reason to believe that hastening his return by few months (during which he'll still be confined under Bureau control) endangers anyone? The government offers, and I see none.

Instead, I believe that an early start on reentry within the halfway house setting can enhance the likelihood of an uneventful period of supervised release and long-term law-abiding behavior.

When he returns home, defendant will do so tarred with the indelible brush marks of one who wanted to provide substantial assistance to overseas terrorists. That stain will never wash off or be wiped away.

For someone so convicted, reentry will be especially difficult.

That being so, it makes better sense — and better serves the community — to allow the defendant to enter a halfway house now, rather than wait until the usual six months before the end of his term.

Delay, on the other hand, can serve no useful purpose, for the defendant or his community.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, I grant the defendant's motion and recommend that the Bureau of Prisons promptly end his prison confinement and transfer him to a Residential Reentry Center to begin the process of reentry into his home community.

It is, therefore, hereby

ORDERED THAT:

1. The defendant's Motion Requesting a Judicial Recommendation Concerning Length of RRC/Halfway House Placement (Doc. 207), be, and the same hereby is granted;

2. The United States Attorney shall on receipt of this Order, immediately forward it to the appropriate Bureau of Prisons officials responsible for deciding when to transfer prison inmates to halfway house custody; and

3. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on the Warden of the Seagoville (Texas) Federal Correctional Institution and the defendant's Case Manager at that institution.

So ordered.