U.S. v. Sanders, 5:16-CR-237-BR. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20181004849
Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER W. EARL BRITT , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant's 1 and 4 July 2018 letters regarding the removal of the date for his placement in a halfway house. (DE ## 35, 36.) Defendant states that the date was removed for minor infractions and it is unfair that he will not be able to go to a halfway house because upon his release from imprisonment, he has nowhere to live, no employment, and no money. He requests that the court order his 60-day placement in a
Summary: ORDER W. EARL BRITT , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on defendant's 1 and 4 July 2018 letters regarding the removal of the date for his placement in a halfway house. (DE ## 35, 36.) Defendant states that the date was removed for minor infractions and it is unfair that he will not be able to go to a halfway house because upon his release from imprisonment, he has nowhere to live, no employment, and no money. He requests that the court order his 60-day placement in a h..
More
ORDER
W. EARL BRITT, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on defendant's 1 and 4 July 2018 letters regarding the removal of the date for his placement in a halfway house. (DE ## 35, 36.) Defendant states that the date was removed for minor infractions and it is unfair that he will not be able to go to a halfway house because upon his release from imprisonment, he has nowhere to live, no employment, and no money. He requests that the court order his 60-day placement in a halfway house or his immediate release. Contrary to defendant's suggestion, the court did not order defendant's release to a halfway house as a part of his sentence. "The [Bureau of Prisons] has sole discretion in deciding whether to place a prisoner in a halfway house, and if so, for how long." United States v. Shroyer, No. 2:17CR00003, 2017 WL 4684192, at *1 (W.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2017) (citing Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 251 (3d Cir. 2005)). To the extent defendant's letters could be construed as motions, they are DENIED.
Source: Leagle
