Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Johnson

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

November 22, 2019

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Ronald David Johnson, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge

         This matter is before the Court on several pro se motions filed by Defendant Ronald David Johnson. (Dkts. 255, 256, 257, 259, 261, 262.) For the reasons addressed below, Johnson's motions are denied.

         BACKGROUND

         A jury found Johnson guilty of ten counts of fraud on June 19, 2017, and the Court sentenced Johnson to 126 months' imprisonment on November 20, 2017. Johnson appealed his convictions and sentence and, thereafter, separately appealed this Court's rulings on several of his pro se postconviction motions.[1] Johnson's appeals are pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Johnson now seeks immediate release to home confinement, reconsideration of the Court's denial of his motion to correct the presentence investigation report, an accounting of assets forfeited to and sold by Plaintiff United States of America, a stay of forfeiture proceedings, and the return of personal property seized from Johnson by law enforcement officers.

         ANALYSIS

         I. Johnson's Motions for Immediate Release to Home Confinement

         Johnson seeks immediate release to home confinement to serve his sentence pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), 132 Stat. 5194-249 (2018). Johnson argues that he qualifies for home confinement under the FSA based on his status as a low-risk, non-violent, first-time offender. The United States opposes Johnson's motion, arguing that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has exclusive authority to designate Johnson's place of confinement.

         Congress has given the BOP the statutory authority to “designate the place of the prisoner's imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). This authority includes the authority to make prerelease custody decisions, such as placement in home confinement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c); Elwood v. Jeter, 386 F.3d 842, 847 (8th Cir. 2004). As relevant here, Section 602 of the FSA amended Section 3624(c)(2) to include a home-confinement provision for low-risk prisoners:

Home confinement authority.-The authority under this subsection may be used to place a prisoner in home confinement for the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner or 6 months. The Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted under this paragraph.

18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2) (emphasis added); 132 Stat. 5238. Johnson relies on this statutory language to support his motion for immediate release to home confinement.

         “Congress has given the Attorney General of the United States the exclusive authority to designate the place of confinement for the service of a federal sentence.” United States v. Johnson, 563 F.2d 362, 364 (8th Cir. 1977); accord Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 331 (2011) (observing that district court may “recommend that the BOP place an offender in a particular facility or program, ” but “decisionmaking authority rests with the BOP”). As such, courts in this District and elsewhere consistently have denied motions seeking immediate release to home confinement under the FSA, holding that the Attorney General and the BOP have the discretion and exclusive authority to designate the place of an inmate's confinement. See, e.g., Hansen v. Rios, No. 19-cv-374, 2019 WL 4305718, at *3 (D. Minn. Sept. 11, 2019); Schlegel v. Rios, No. 19-cv-338, 2019 WL 3417053, at *4 (D. Minn. June 18, 2019) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 3412207 (D. Minn. July 29, 2019). This Court has no authority to grant the relief Johnson seeks.[2]

         For these reasons, Johnson's motions for immediate release to home confinement are denied.

         II. Johnson's Motion for Reconsideration

         Johnson next moves for reconsideration of the Court's April 2, 2019 Order, which denied Johnson's motion to correct ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.