United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
JALEN J. WALKER, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NON-BINDING PLACEMENT
RECOMMENDATION TO BUREAU OF PRISONS
TERRENCE G. BERG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Jalen J. Walker was convicted of the offense of felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
922(g)(2). On June 16, 2016, this Court sentenced him to
serve 54 months in prison. On February 26, 2018, when
Petitioner was 16 months away from him release date, he filed
a motion requesting that the Court issue a non-binding
recommendation to the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) suggesting he be permitted to serve
between six and twelve months of his sentence in a
Residential Reentry Center (“RRC”) placement, and
the last six months of his sentence in home confinement. ECF
No. 31. Because the BOP has already provided Petitioner with
his requested RRC placement and he was released from custody
as of July 19, 2019, the Court will deny his motion as moot.
See ECF No. 33 PageID.152 (Gov't Br.) (stating
that Petitioner has already been placed in an RRC).
U.S.C. § 3624(c) provides that the BOP “shall, to
the extent practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving a term
of imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of that
term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will
afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to
and prepare for . . . reentry.” Consistent with this
statute, the BOP may permit a prisoner to serve the end of
his or her sentence in an RRC or under home confinement,
though home confinement is only allowed “for the
shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment . . . or 6
months.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1)-(2).
“[t]he BOP, not the court, is responsible for
designating the place of a prisoner's
imprisonment.” United States v. Townsend, 631
Fed.Appx. 373, 378 (6th Cir. 2015); 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).
Though this Court has discretion to make a recommendation
regarding where Petitioner serves his sentence, that
recommendation “shall have no binding effect of the
Bureau under this section to determine or change the place of
imprisonment of that person.” Id. (quoting
§ 3621(b)). See United States v.
Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 894 (6th Cir. 1991) (courts have
no jurisdiction to choose where a prisoner serves his or her
the BOP is ultimately responsible for the Petitioner's
placement, the BOP must consider courts' recommendations
in making placement decisions. See 18 §
3621(b)(4)(B). When determining whether to recommend that a
specific individual be placed in an RRC, a court may consider
the prisoner's behavior during his or her sentence,
including records of participation in classes and programs in
prison, as well as whether RRC placement will promote the
goals of rehabilitation. See, e.g., United States v.
Bartels, No. 12-cr-20072, 2016 WL 6956796, *1 (E.D.
Mich. Nov. 29, 2016); United States v. Ahmed, No.
1:07CR00647, 2017 WL 51664 27, *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2017);
United States v. Collins, No. 2:15-cr-00176-7, 2018
WL 1157508, *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2018).
Court commends Petitioner's participation in numerous
classes while serving his sentence at Milan Federal
Correctional Institute. His transcript indicates that he
completed his GED or high school diploma in September 2016
and took various other educational courses in 2016 and 2017,
including intention-setting, business math, and a class that
will help him obtain his commercial drivers' license. ECF
No. 31 PageID.146 (Milan FCI Inmate Transcript). Because
Petitioner had already been transferred to his requested RRC
placement, however, and was released on July 19, 2019, the
Court finds that issuing a non-binding recommendation for six
months of home confinement would at this point provide no
these reasons, the Court hereby DENIES
Petitioner's motion requesting that the Court issue a
non-binding recommendation to the BOP suggesting he serve
between six months and a year in an RRC, and the last six
months of that period in home confinement. The Court further
DENIES a certificate of appealability, and
GRANTS permission to appeal in forma
 Petitioner was under the supervision
of a Residential Reentry Management field office in the
Detroit, Michigan area from at least February 1, 2019 until
his release from custody on July 19, 2019. See ECF
No. 34 (Certificate of Service for the government's brief
in opposition ...