REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOHN J. O'SULLIVAN, Magistrate Judge.

THIS MATTER came before the Court on the Defendant Thomas Schroepfer's Sealed, Motion for an Order Recommending That the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Transfer Him to Another Facility and for a Hearing with Supporting Memorandum of Law (DE# 47, 3/23/12). This matter was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for a report and recommendation. See Order of Reference (DE# 48, 3/30/12). Having reviewed the applicable filings and the law and having held a hearing on April 10, 2012, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Defendant Thomas Schroepfer's Sealed, Motion for an Order Recommending That the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Transfer Him to Another Facility and for a Hearing with Supporting Memorandum of Law (DE# 47, 3/23/12) be DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On August 23, 2011, the defendant pled guilty to Count 1 of the Information, conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 371. See Minute Entry (DE# 28, 8/24/11). The defendant was sentenced and this Court entered a judgment against him on November 7, 2011. See Judgment in a Criminal Case (DE# 43, 11/8/11).

On March 23, 2012, the defendant filed the instant motion. See Defendant Thomas Schroepfer's Sealed, Motion for an Order Recommending That the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Transfer Him to Another Facility and for a Hearing with Supporting Memorandum of Law (DE# 47, 3/23/12). On April 3, 2012, the defendant filed a notice requesting an expedited hearing on this matter. See Defendant Thomas Schroepfer's Sealed Notice Requesting Expedited Status Conference on His Motion for an Order Recommending That the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Transfer Him to Another Facility (DE# 51, 4/3/12). On April 4, 2012, the government filed a response to the instant motion arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief requested pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582. See Response to Motion (DE# 53, 4/4/12). The undersigned held an expedited hearing on April 10, 2012 wherein the defendant's counsel and the government presented oral argument. The defendant was not present at this hearing.

ANALYSIS

The undersigned has reviewed the authority cited by the government and finds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief requested in the instant motion. Judgments of conviction are final judgments in criminal cases. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b). Here, the defendant is requesting that he be transferred to a different facility where he can serve the remainder of his six-month term of imprisonment.1 At the April 10, 2012 hearing, the defendant requested that the Court prepare a non-binding letter to the Bureau of Prisons recommending that the defendant be transferred to another facility. At the time of the judgment, the district court issued a recommendation that the defendant serve his sentence at a facility near his home in Nevada. In essence the defendant is requesting that the Court amend the judgment to make a new recommendation that the defendant be transferred from this present facility. The defendant cites no basis under section 3852 to modify this Court's final judgement. For these reasons, the defendant's motion seeking relief from this Court is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction.

RECOMMENDATION

In accordance with the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Defendant Thomas Schroepfer's Sealed, Motion for an Order Recommending That the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Transfer Him to Another Facility and for a Hearing with Supporting Memorandum of Law (DE# 47, 3/23/12) be DENIED.2 Because of the emergency nature of the defendant's request, the defendant has until Monday, April 16, 2012 to serve and file written objections, if any, with the Honorable Joan A. Lenard, United States District Court Judge. The government has until Monday, April 23, 2012 to file a response. Failure to file objections timely shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal the factual findings contained herein. See LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).