Filed: Jan. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 14, 2016
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Hope Ippoliti's Motion to Change Method by Which Balance of Sentence is Served (ECF No. 86). On March 25, 2013, Defendant pled guilty to Count One of the Indictment to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349. (ECF No. 31, 33). On October 18, 2013, the Court imposed a sentence of 37 months in custody, along with three years of supervised release. (ECF No. 63, 67). In her motion, Defendan
Summary: ORDER GLORIA M. NAVARRO , Chief District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Hope Ippoliti's Motion to Change Method by Which Balance of Sentence is Served (ECF No. 86). On March 25, 2013, Defendant pled guilty to Count One of the Indictment to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349. (ECF No. 31, 33). On October 18, 2013, the Court imposed a sentence of 37 months in custody, along with three years of supervised release. (ECF No. 63, 67). In her motion, Defendant..
More
ORDER
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Hope Ippoliti's Motion to Change Method by Which Balance of Sentence is Served (ECF No. 86). On March 25, 2013, Defendant pled guilty to Count One of the Indictment to Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. (ECF No. 31, 33). On October 18, 2013, the Court imposed a sentence of 37 months in custody, along with three years of supervised release. (ECF No. 63, 67).
In her motion, Defendant requests that the Court allow her to serve the last 6 months of her custody sentence in home detention instead of a halfway house, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). (ECF No. 86). However, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons has complete jurisdiction regarding the designation of "the place of the prisoner's imprisonment." 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). This is further supported by Defendant's Judgment, where this Court committed Defendant to the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prison for her term of imprisonment. (J. 2, ECF No. 67). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 86) is DENIED.
