United States District Court, District of Columbia
COLLEEN KOLEAR-KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Kinjurm Allen ("Defendant" or "Mr.
Allen") is presently serving a sentence of 87 months
imprisonment, with credit for time served, followed by
supervised release for 60 months, after having entered a
guilty plea to one count of Conspiracy to Distribute and
Possession with Intent to Distribute 100 grams or more of a
mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
phencyclidine (PCP) and 28 grams or more of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iv),
(b)(1)(B)(iii) and 846. See December 11, 2015
Judgment, ECF No. 14. In August 2018, Mr. Allen filed a
Letter, ECF No. 18, with an attached Pro Se Motion
Requesting [a] Judicial Recommendation for 12 Months RRC
[Residential Reentry Center] Placement pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3621(b)(4). The Government filed its  Opposition
to Defendant's motion. No. reply was received by Mr.
Allen until after this Court issued its  Memorandum
Opinion and  Order in October 2018. In November 2018, Mr.
Allen submitted the instant  Motion for Reconsideration
of Request for Judicial Recommendation and the Court received
a copy of his  Reply to the Government's Opposition
to Defendant's Pro Se Motion. This Court granted
Mr. Allen leave to file the Motion for Reconsideration and
Motion for Reconsideration notes that "Defendant had
submitted a reply noting the errors contained in the
Government's memorandum pertaining to Defendant's
projected release date, qualification for home confinement
and eligibility for RDAP credit." Def.'s Mot. for
Reconsideration, ECF No. 24, at 1. Because Mr. Allen is
pro se and incarcerated, it is unclear whether the
Reply- recently received by this Court but undated and
containing no certificate of service - was previously mailed
to the Court. Accordingly, assuming arguendo that
the Reply was previously timely mailed, the Court will
consider it in the context of Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration. Upon review of the record and for the
reasons explained below, the Court DENIES Defendant's
Motion for Reconsideration.
issue underlying Defendant's Pro Se Motion and
his Motion for Reconsideration is his request that this Court
provide a judicial recommendation for 12 months RRC
placement. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), the BOP
"shall designate the place of the prisoner's
imprisonment" and will consider a recommendation by the
sentencing court of the "type of penal or correctional
facility." 18 U.S.C. §3621(b) & (b)(4).
Ultimately, the BOP not only designates the place of
imprisonment but also "direct[s] the transfer of a
prisoner from one penal or correctional facility to
another[.]" 18 U.S.C. Section 3621(b). While a
sentencing court may make a "recommendation ... that a
convicted person serve a term of imprisonment in a community
corrections facility" such recommendation has "no
binding effect on the authority of the Bureau ... to
determine or change the place of imprisonment of [any]
it is within a court's discretion to make a
recommendation for a prisoner's placement at a penal or
correctional facility. In this case, the Court made the
following recommendations to the BOP in its  Judgment:
"That Defendant participate in the drug treatment
program. That Defendant's sentence be served near the
Baltimore area." Mr. Allen is currently incarcerated at
the Federal Correctional Institution Allenwood ("FCI
Allenwood") in White Deer, Pennsylvania, with a
full-term release date of April 13, 2022, and a projected
release date of June 12, 2021, based on receipt of "good
behavior credit." Def.'s Reply, ECF No. 25, at 1.
Mr. Allen participated in the RDAP program, but he was
"denied a 12-month reduction in his sentence for
successfully completing RDAP." Id. Mr. Allen
acknowledges that he "has not undertaken to exhaust his
administrative remedies" regarding that BOP decision,
but he indicates that he "does not seek to challenge. .
. denial of RDAP sentencing credit." Def.'s Mot. For
Reconsideration, ECF 24, at 2. Instead, Mr. Allen asks that
"this Court make its non-binding recommendation to the
BOP that it favorably consider granting Defendant up to 12
months of halfway house placement, with up to six of those
twelve months consisting of home confinement, pursuant to
this Court's statutory authority to make recommendations
to the BOP under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)." Def.'s
Mot. For Reconsideration, ECF No. 24, at 2.
relevant statutory section providing guidance on the timing
for a prisoner's reentry into the community is 18 U.S.C.
Section 3624(c)(1), and it states that the Director of BOP
"shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that a
prisoner... spends a portion of the final months of that term
(not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will afford
[him] a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for
the reentry ... into the community[, ]" which may
"include a community correctional facility." 18
U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1). Furthermore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 3624(c)(2), a prisoner may be placed in home
confinement for not more than the shorter of 10 percent of
the term of imprisonment or six months. The Court notes that,
in this case, Mr. Allen's "Home Detention
Eligibility Date" is December 12, 2020, which is six
months prior to his projected release date. See Def
s Pro Se Mot., ECF No. 18-1, Attachment A (Sentence
Monitoring Computation Data). Defendant's Attachment A
does not however reflect a date, prospective or otherwise,
for Defendant's transfer to a community correctional
facility. Nor does Mr. Allen "seek to challenge an
administrative decision of the BOP concerning his halfway
house placement." Def.'s Mot. For Reconsideration,
ECF No. 24, at 2. Accordingly, the sole relief requested by
Mr. Allen is that this Court issue a recommendation to BOP
that Mr. Allen be given 12 months RRC placement.
request for a judicial recommendation for a longer RRC
placement is premised on his general assertion that a longer
placement will facilitate his transition back to society.
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration reiterates his
"compelling reasons" in support of this Court's
issuance of a recommendation insofar as he "successfully
completed RDAP[, ]" and he has "submitted evidence
of his vocational and educational accomplishments while being
incarcerated" and further "demonstrated exemplary
behavior." Def.'s Mot. For Reconsideration, ECF 24,
at 3. Responding to these reasons proffered by Mr. Allen, the
Government previously asserted that even if the Court were to
consider the merits of Defendant's request, "the
defendant has shown no reason why he should be considered the
rare prisoner who should receive 12 months in a halfway
house" as "concerns such as housing, employment,
and transportation are the same for all inmates who are being
released from prison." Govt. Opp'n at 3-4. While the
Court commends Mr. Allen for having completed the RDAP
program and for his vocational and educational
accomplishments and his exemplary behavior, which warrants
his receipt of 305 days of good behavior credit, the Court
agrees with the Government that Defendant has not proffered
any compelling reason for this Court to issue a judicial
recommendation to the BOP at this point for a further
reduction in Mr. Allen's sentence. Likewise, the Court is
reluctant to make judicial recommendations of this sort when
there has been no contact between the Court and the Defendant
since sentencing. Accordingly, no advisory recommendation is
forthcoming and the Defendant's  Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED.
separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
 In connection with this Opinion, the
Court considered the following documents: Defendant's
Letter, ECF No. 18, with the attached Pro Se Motion
Requesting Judicial Recommendation for 12 Months RRC
placement Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4), ECF No.
18-1; the Government's Opposition to Defendant's
Pro Se Motion; Defendant's ...