United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
V. S. GRANADE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Defendant, Geary Hill's
(“Hill”), Motion to Obtain a Court Recommendation
concerning length of imprisonment in a residential release
center (“RRC”). (Doc. 94).
October 9, 2007, this Court sentenced Hill to a term of 324
months imprisonment for possession with the intent to
distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841. (Doc. 47). Hill was additionally sentenced to five years
of supervised release. (Id.) Hill's conviction
and sentence was affirmed on appeal on September 10, 2008.
(Doc. 66). On April 28, 2009, April 10, 2012, and May 18,
2015, Hill's sentence was reduced to 280 months, 268
months, and 188 months respectively, based on changes made to
the sentencing guidelines. (Doc. 72, 80, 89). Hill does not
indicate his anticipated release date. Hill now seeks a
recommendation from this Court that he be given the maximum
amount of time allowable in an RRC. (Doc. 94).
Second Chance Act amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) authorizes
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to allow a prisoner to
spend a portion of the final months of his/her sentence (not
to exceed twelve months) “under conditions that will
afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to
and prepare for reentry of that prisoner into the
community”. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1). As such, the
amendment “authorize[d] the BOP to consider placing an
inmate in an RRC for up to the final 12 months of his or her
sentence, rather than the final six months that were
available pre-amendment.” Demis v. Sniezek,
558 F.3d 508, 514 (6th Cir. 2009); see Wood v.
Outlaw, No., 2010 WL 3417811, at *2 (Aug. 26, 2010)
(“Among other things, the Act extended the maximum
allowable RRC placement from 6 months to 12 months.”).
The relevant conditions include placement in a community
correctional facility. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1).
to the Act, BOP staff is directed to review inmates for RRC
placement 17 to 19 months before their projected release date
and to consider inmates on an individual basis using the
following five factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b):
(1) the resources of the facility contemplated; (2) the
nature and circumstances of the offense; (3) the history and
characteristics of the prisoner; (4) any statement by the
court that imposed the sentence (concerning the purposes for
which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be
warranted, or recommending a type of penal or correctional
facility as appropriate); and (5) any pertinent policy
statement issued by the Sentencing Commission. See
18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(1)-(5). Placement in a community
correctional facility should be "of sufficient duration
to provide the greatest likelihood of successful
reintegration into the' 'community." 18 U.S.C.
this is the Court that sentenced Hill, it can issue a
recommendation as to the type of penal or correctional
institution that is appropriate as requested by Hill.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B); See also,
U.S. v. Baker, 2013 WL 355867 (M.D. Ala. January 29,
2013). However, upon review of Hill's motion, this Court
does not find that the requested recommendation is
appropriate at this time. Rather, this Court finds that it
lacks the information from which it could determine whether
or not a recommendation should be made in Hill's case.
While Hill has sufficiently shown that this Court has the
authority to make a recommendation, only one sentence of his
motion indicates why his request should be granted.
That sentence states that “[d]uring the months that the
movant has been [in] prison, he has taken advantage of all
the available educational and vocational courses that the BOP
has offered in the institution where movant has been
at.” (Doc. 94). Unfortunately, Hill has not provided
any information or documentation that shows what courses have
been offered, taken, or completed or any
information/documentation as to Hill's conduct while
incarcerated or that would support a recommendation from this
Court that he should be placed in an RRC for the maximum time
allowable. For example, Hill has not provided any information
about his circumstances which would make him more suitable
for RRC confinement or that shows his efforts to become a
valuable member of society once he is released. Nor does his
motion provide any information about any disciplinary history
while incarcerated. As such, this Court now denies Hill's
request for a recommendation. To be clear, this denial is not
intended to suggest that Hill should not be given twelve
months in an RRC, it is simply a denial based on a lack of
information from which a recommendation could be made.
reasons stated herein above, Hill's Motion to Obtain a
Court Recommendation concerning length of imprisonment in a
residential release center (Doc. 94) is hereby DENIED.
 This Court notes that attached to
Hill's previous motion to reduce sentence (Doc. 90), Hill
submitted a memorandum (Doc. 91-1) which indicates that Hill
has enrolled in thirty-three courses while incarcerated. The
titles of some of these courses appear to relate to life
skills, behavior, or post-conviction employment. However, the
document submitted is not a transcript from the BOP of
courses completed by Hill. Moreover, even
considering the list of courses, this Court still lacks
relevant information ...