United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
RECOMMENDATION FOR RESIDENTIAL RE-ENTRY CENTER (RRC)
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Everette R.
George's ("Defendant") motion seeking a
judicial recommendation to the Federal Bureau of Prisons
("BOP") to afford Defendant placement in a
Residential Re-Entry Center ("RRC") for the last
twelve months of his sentence. (Dkt. 536, at 5; PgID 7601.)
For the reasons stated below and in the government's
response , Defendant's motion for the Court's
recommendation regarding placement is DENIED.
14, 2015, Defendant pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C.
§1959(a)(3) for assault with a dangerous weapon in aid
of racketeering. (Rule 11 Plea Agreement; Dkt. 320, at 1;
PgID 1670.) The Court sentenced Defendant to 57 months of
imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
(Judgment; Dkt. 389, at 2-3; PgID 3366-67.) Defendant has 23
months left to serve on his sentence. (Id.)
represents that he is "young enough to be reformed and
to rejoin a law-abiding society with all the available help
from a prolonged placement in a federal halfway house."
(D. Mot.; Dkt. 536, at 1; PgID 7597.) As of the filing of the
motion, Defendant reports he was enrolled in or had completed
several BOP programs including Alternatives to Violence, Drug
Education, FDIC Money Smart I-VII, Job Fair, Parenting I
& II, Power of Positive Thinking, Real Estate
Rehabilitation I & II, RRP1 Circuit Training, VT Culinary
Arts, VT Electrical, VT Masonry, VT Residential Carpentry,
and Victim Impact. Defendant also reports he is enroled in a
distance learning program with the Louisiana State
University. Defendant states he has received no disciplinary
reports during his incarceration which began in March 2013.
seeks a recommendation from this Court that he should be
afforded the maximum placement time in a RRC/halfway house of
twelve months. (D. Mot.; Dkt. 536, at 5; PgID 7601.) In
response, the government opposes Defendant's request. The
government states the nature and circumstances of
Defendant's offense as well as Defendant's criminal
history do not support such a benefit. (Govt. Resp. to
Mot.;Dkt. 538.) The government offers several arguments
against the Court making such a recommendation.
government asserts Defendant already received an 84-month
discount on his sentence. When Defendant signed his plea
agreement the government dropped the §924(c) count
against Defendant which carried a mandatory consecutive
sentence of at least 84 months. (Plea Agreement; Dkt. 320 at
9; PgID 1678.) The government also argues Defendant's
crime, which involved pulling a gun midday on an elderly
couple, was brazen and violent. Defendant's connection
with a gang makes the context of this crime even more
dangerous, violent, and intimidating. Cooperators described
Defendant as having a particularly violent reputation. Yet
many of these factors were not fully reflected in
Defendant's relatively low guideline range. The
government states these violent characteristics suggest the
public will also benefit from Defendant serving his full
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(1), (2)(c).
government believes the nature of the crime, and
Defendant's previous criminal history, make specific
detergence and respect for the law particularly important in
Defendant's case. See U.S.C. §
3553(a)(2)(A)-(B). Defendant's criminal history began in
2008 and reflects escalating misconduct. This, however, is
the first instance Defendant received a punishment of more
than small fines or probation. The government states
"[t]he §3553(a) factors supported the Court's
sentence at the very highest point of the guideline range,
and that is the sentence he should serve in prison."
(Dkt. 538, at 7; PgID 7611.) To let Defendant escape his full
punishment, has the potential of undermining Defendant's
respect for the law.
government also asserts, general deterrence as a final factor
for ensuring Defendant serves his full sentence. The Bounty
Hunter gang members, of which he was a member, glorified gang
culture, celebrated their crimes, and bragged about violence.
"Gang members in Detroit, and particularly the Bounty
Hunters, need to be sent a message that if they continue
doing what they've always done, they will face
consequences." (Dkt. 538, at 8; PgID 7612.) See
also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B). II. Legal Standard
The BOP has the statutory authority to place an inmate into
"any available penal or correctional facility." 18
U.S.C. §3621(b). Pursuant to the administrative
regulations accompanying the Second Chance Act, the decision
to place an inmate in a pre-release community confinement is
discretionary and will be "determined on an individual
basis" according to the factors in 18 U.S.C.
§3621(b). The BOP has the authority to designate the
place of an inmate's imprisonment and to direct the
transfer of a prisoner from one penal correctional facility
to another "at any time." Rodriguez v.
Smith, 541 F.3d 1180, 1182-83 (9th Cir. 2008). In making
initial placement, transfer placement, and end of sentence
determinations, the BOP is required to consider the five
factors set forth in §3621(b):
(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 sentences -
(a) concerning the purpose for which the sentence to
imprisonment was determined ...