CONCERNING RRC PLACEMENT CONDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION

(ECF No. 631)

LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.

Before the Court for Decision is Defendant Jayson Peter Costa's motion requesting that the Court recommend to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") that Defendant be placed in a residential re-entry center ("RRC") for a period of up to twelve (12) months prior to the end of his sentenced. ECF No. 631. At the Court's request, the government filed a response, ECF No. 633, to which Defendant was permitted to reply. ECF No. 635.

On November 12, 2013, Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, arising out of a complex mortgage fraud scheme involving multiple individuals. On March 34, 2014, Defendant was sentenced to 78 months incarceration and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $6,839,969.05. ECF No. 406. He is presently incarcerated in the Federal Prison Camp at Leavenworth, Kansas. ECF No. 631. According to the BOP's online inmate locator, his current anticipated release date is December 19, 2018.1

"After a district court sentences a federal offender, the Attorney General, through the BOP . . ., has the responsibility for administering the sentence." United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3621(a) ("a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment . . . shall be committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons until the expiration of the term imposed")). Although "Section 3621(b) gives the Bureau of Prisons discretion to designate the facility" for a prisoner's sentence, the BOP is required to consider a number of factors "when it exercises [that] discretion." Rodriguez v. Copenhaver, 823 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2016). Those factors include: (1) the resources of the facility contemplated; (2) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner; (4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence, either (a) concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be warranted or (b) recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate; and (5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (emphasis supplied). A court has discretion to make recommendations regarding RRC placement post-sentencing, see, e.g., United States v. Brattin, No. 2:13-CR-00161 JAD CWH1, 2016 WL 4467897, at *1 (D. Nev. Aug. 23, 2016) (granting request where Defendant demonstrated placement in RRC, if practicable, would ease defendants transition back into society and where defendant had no prison disciplinary history); United States v. Medina, No. CR 13-112-BLG-SPW, 2017 WL 5505795, at *1 (D. Mont. Nov. 16, 2017) (declining to make such a recommendation even though defendant might benefit from RRC because BOP had most up to date information and defendant had "a long history of violating conditions of release"), although any such judicial recommendation is non-binding. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(5) ("Any order, recommendation, or request by a sentencing court that a convicted person serve a term of imprisonment in a community corrections facility shall have no binding effect on the authority of the Bureau under this section to determine or change the place of imprisonment of that person".).

18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) sets forth the parameters governing BOP placement in a community correctional facility or in home confinement.

(c) Prerelease Custody.—

18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). Prisoners, therefore, are eligible for a maximum of twelve months in a facility such as a halfway house and no more than six months in home confinement.

Defendant has presented evidence to the Court in the form of his "Summary Reentry Plan — Progress Report," dated March 14, 2018, indicating that he has engaged in substantial efforts to educate and better himself during his period of incarceration and that he has no discipline on record within the past six months. See ECF No. 635 at 2-4.2 The Court hereby incorporates by reference that March 14, 2018 Report. Critically, the Court finds RRC placement should be considered seriously in this case because of the amount of restitution remaining unpaid. Defendant has thus far been able to pay down only a tiny fraction of the restitution owed. The faster he is re-integrated into the community, the faster he can begin to make the victims whole. This recommendation is conditional, however, on Defendant having and maintaining a clean disciplinary record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.