USA v. Pendleton, 4:06-cr-40029-JPG-1. (2018)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20180207a05
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on defendant Keon Pendleton's motion for a judicial recommendation. (Doc. 727.) Pendleton asks the Court to recommend to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that Pendleton should serve the last year of his sentence in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) or in home confinement. The defendant also instructs that he is not asking the Court to "modify his sentence under [R]ule 35, 36, or 18 U.S.C. [ ] 3582"
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on defendant Keon Pendleton's motion for a judicial recommendation. (Doc. 727.) Pendleton asks the Court to recommend to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that Pendleton should serve the last year of his sentence in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) or in home confinement. The defendant also instructs that he is not asking the Court to "modify his sentence under [R]ule 35, 36, or 18 U.S.C. [ ] 3582",..
More
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Keon Pendleton's motion for a judicial recommendation. (Doc. 727.) Pendleton asks the Court to recommend to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that Pendleton should serve the last year of his sentence in a Residential Reentry Center (RRC) or in home confinement. The defendant also instructs that he is not asking the Court to "modify his sentence under [R]ule 35, 36, or 18 U.S.C. [§] 3582", but he rather only wants the Court to make a recommendation to the BOP.
The Court cannot grant Pendleton's request. Contrary to his assertions, what Pendleton seeks is an advisory opinion. It is well established that advisory opinions do not constitute a justiciable "case or controversy" under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Flying J Inc. v. City of New Haven, 549 F.3d 538, 544 (7th Cir. 2008). And even though Pendleton claims that he is not asking the Court to modify his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, it nevertheless applies. That statute "precludes modification of a prison term except on motion of the Bureau of Prisons." United States v. Jumah, 431 F. App'x 494, 496 (7th Cir. 2011). The BOP has made no such motion here, and thus there is no justiciable case or controversy for the Court to adjudicate. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Pendleton's motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
