Criminal Case, Preparation, Sentence Mitigation

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF KANSAS

Court Orders Release to HH or HC – The Admin. Remedy §2241

A case for understanding The Administrative Remedy Process.

Respondent

Petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 120 months, with 60 months of supervised release,

• on projected good conduct time; petitioner would have a statutory release date of April 8, 2027;· petitioner’s completion of a Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP.12/2023); his projected release date is now April 8, 2025.
• · The BOP has applied 365 days of ETCs toward the petitioner’s release date and 445 days of ETCs toward time in a residential reentry center (RRC).
• · Petitioner is eligible for placement in an RRC on September 4, 2024.

Respondent and BOP,

• Placement into an RRC is made to the extent that resources and bed space permit, and such placement is not required if no space is available.
• The place of petitioner’s confinement falls within the BOP’s discretion, with which this Court has no authority – two statutes apply.
  • First, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) grants the BOP the authority to designate (transfer) confinement, and “a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court.”
  • Second, the transfer of a prisoner to prerelease custody is addressed in 18 U.S.C. §3624. Subsection 3624(c).

The Court.

• Respondent’s excuse for delaying petitioner’s transfer to an RRC is that bed space is not available
• No such condition concerning bed availability is included among the requirements for eligibility under Section 3624(g),
• …thus, immediate placement in prerelease custody is nevertheless required under Section 3632(d)(4)(C).3
• In this case, it is clear that the BOP has no discretion to refuse or delay the transfer of the petitioner to prerelease custody.5
• Respondent has not argued or provided evidence, however, that there is no available space for petitioner in any RRC
• …the Court grants the petition for relief. The respondent and the BOP have been ordered to effect such a transfer.

This Court has determined that the BOP did not follow the law regarding its transfer decision involving the petitioner; thus, the Court has determined that habeas relief is appropriate.