United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Kent Hansen, FPC Duluth, pro se petitioner.
Voss, Ann M. Bildtsen, and Erin M. Secord, Assistant United
States Attorneys, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE, for respondent.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING ORDER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
R. TUNHEIM CHIEF JUDGE
Randal Kent Hansen is serving a 108-month sentence after a
jury convicted him of mail and wire fraud. See United
States v. Hansen, 791 F.3d 863, 865 (8th8th
Cir. 2015) (affirming the conviction). Hansen seeks a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and has also filed
a Petition/Motion for Immediate Release. Hansen asserts that
he must be released immediately under the Second Chance Act
as he is over 60 years old and has served two-thirds of his
the Court has no authority to grant a prisoner home detention
under 34 U.S.C. § 60541(g), the Court will overrule
Hansen’s objections, adopt the Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by the
Magistrate Judge, and deny Hansen’s Petitions.
is a 71-year-old man currently incarcerated at the Federal
Prison Camp in Duluth, Minnesota (“FPC Duluth”).
(Pet. at 1, 7; February 14, 2019; Docket No. 1). He is
serving a 108-month term of imprisonment imposed by Judge
Karen Schreier of the United States District Court of South
Dakota. (Id. at 1; Decl. of Misty Jones
(“Jones Decl.”) ¶ 6, June 6, 2019, Docket
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 and a Petition/Motion for Immediate Release on
February 14, 2019. (Pet.; Motion, February 14, 2019, Docket
No. 3.) Hansen argued that he is eligible for relief under
the Second Chance Act, and that as a result he must be
released immediately. The Government answered the Petition on
June 10, 2019. (Response, June 10, 2019, Docket No. 9.)
Hansen filed a Reply on June 27, 2019. (Reply, June 27, 2019,
Docket No. 13.)
Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending that
Hansen’s Petition for Habeas Corpus be denied and
dismissed with prejudice, and that Hansen’s
Petition/Motion for Immediate Release be denied. (R&R at
6, July 18, 2019, Docket No. 14.) Hansen filed his Objections
to the R&R on August 1, 2019. (Obj. to R. & R., Aug.
1, 2019, Docket No. 15.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
the filing of an R&R by a magistrate judge, “a
party may serve and file specific written objections to the
proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2); accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). “The
district judge must determine de novo any part of the
magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); accord D.
Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3). “The district judge may accept,
reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3);
accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(3).
objects to the R&R’s recommendation that his
Petition and Petition/Motion be denied and dismissed. The
Court will review the related findings de novo.