United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Enedino Galindo's
pro se Motion for Recommending 12 Months CCC/RRC
Placement. (Doc. 90). The Government has not filed a
response, and the time to do so expired. For the following
reasons, the Court denies Galindo's motion.
years ago, the Court sentenced Galindo to seventy months'
imprisonment for possessing a firearm and ammunition as a
convicted felon. (Doc. 52). At the sentencing hearing,
Galindo testified along with his wife, sister, sister-in-law,
and disabled son's self-care assistant. (Doc. 82). Common
to their testimonies was that Galindo is a good father who
has a close bond with his son. The son has cerebral palsy and
requires around-the-clock care. Galindo also expressed
concern for how his wife would care for their son and four
other children if he was in prison. The Court considered the
testimonies, among other things, in sentencing Galindo to a
low-end guidelines sentence. It was also recommended that
Galindo be incarcerated in a facility close to home. (Doc. 52
now moves for a judicial recommendation to the BOP that he be
placed in a residential reentry center (“RRC”)
for twelve months, six months of which would be home
confinement. (Doc. 90 at 1). To support his request, Galindo
outlines his achievements and self-improvements while
incarcerated. (Doc. 90-1). For example, he has earned a High
School Equivalency Credential, completed the residential drug
program, and attended several other education courses. (Doc.
90 at 2; Doc. 90-1 at 5-7). He also states that his wife
struggles to care for their children.
federal law, once a court imposes a sentence, the Bureau of
Prisons (“BOP”) assumes legal authority over the
prisoner. Only the BOP can designate the place of a
prisoner's imprisonment. See18 U.S.C. §
3621(b); United States v. Sonny Austin Ramedo, No.
17-10297, 2017 WL 3446898, at *1 (11th Cir. Aug. 11, 2017)
(stating “the BOP is afforded wide discretion in
classifying and housing prisoners” (citations
omitted)). And the agency decides a place of imprisonment
based on certain factors including the sentencing court's
recommendation on “a type of penal or correctional
facility.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B). “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.” Id. § 3621(b).
18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) provides that a federal inmate may
be granted pre-release custody, in which he is permitted to
serve a portion of his federal sentence in the community,
whether it is home confinement or placement in a community
correctional facility. “The BOP considers all five
factors listed in § 3621(b), as well as the guidelines
under § 3624(c)(1), and makes an individual
determination on each inmate's placement into an
RRC.” United States v. Horton, No.
2:12-cr-7-BO-1, 2017 WL 3204479, at *1 (W.D. N.C. July 27,
2017) (citations omitted). One factor considered is the
sentencing court's recommendation on a “type of
penal or correctional facility” for the defendant.
the Court recommended a prison placement for Galindo in its
judgment, i.e., he be housed close to home. (Doc.
52). But it made no recommendation on RRC or halfway house
placement. The Court thus construes Galindo's motion as
requesting a supplemental recommendation on RRC or halfway
house placement. At sentencing, the Court carefully
considered multiple facts bearing on Galindo's
incarceration. And Galindo reiterates many of those same
facts in this motion. The Court did not find at sentencing -
nor does it find now - that a recommendation to the BOP on
RRC placement to be appropriate. See
Ramedo, 2017 WL 3446898, at *1 (rejecting
defendant's argument that the district court was required
to recommend to the BOP that his “public safety
factor” designation be removed); see also
United States v. Martin, No. 16-17353 (11th Cir.
Aug. 15, 2017) (holding “a district court's denial
of a recommendation to the BOP is not a final order subject
to appellate review” and stating defendant's
“relief requested, if granted, would violate the
prohibition on federal courts issuing non-binding advisory
opinions”). The Court commends Galindo for his
achievements while in custody and feels confident the BOP
will consider his performance and behavior record when
deciding his eligibility, if any, for RRC placement.
Galindo's Motion for Recommending 12 Months CCC/RRC
Placement (Doc. 90) is DENIED. The Court
takes no position on RRC placement but leaves the decision in
the discretion of the Bureau of Prisons.
 Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF
may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience.
Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are
subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other
websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or
guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any ...