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. Noguni

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 17, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
TEMOGEN TRAN NOGUNI, Defendant.

          ORDER

          GLORIA M. NAVARRO, CHIEF JUDGE

         Before the Court is Temogen Tran Noguni's (“Defendant's”) Letter, (ECF No. 112), requesting a recommendation from the Court for Defendant to participate in the Second Chance Act at the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). For the reasons discussed below, the Court declines Defendant's request.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On August 28, 2017, Defendant pleaded guilty to the unauthorized sale of property of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. (Plea Agreement, ECF No. 91); (Mins. Proceedings, ECF No. 89). The Court accordingly sentenced Defendant to eighteen-months imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. (J., ECF No. 111). The Court also recommended that the BOP allow Defendant to serve his term of incarceration as close to Las Vegas, Nevada as possible in order for Defendant to be near family. (Id.).

         On January 5, 2019, Defendant filed a letter with the Court, requesting a judicial recommendation that he participate in the Second Chance Act with the BOP. Upon receiving Defendant's letter, the Court requested a response from the Government, to which the Government complied. (Resp., ECF No. 114).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         “The Bureau of Prisons has the statutory authority to choose the locations where prisoners serve their sentence.” United States v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir. 2011). Nevertheless, the BOP may consider (among other things):

         (4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence-

(A) concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be warranted; or
(B) recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate.

         Id.; 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). A court's recommendation is non-binding. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Additionally, district courts have “the authority to make (or not make) non-binding recommendations to the [BOP] at any time-including but not limited to-during the sentencing colloquy.” Ceballos, 671 F.3d at 856 n.2; United States v. Hoffman, No. 2:15-cr-00234-JAM-1, 2018 WL 6634378, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2018).

         The Second Chance Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3624, permits the BOP to consider placing inmates nearing the end of their sentences in conditions “that will afford [the inmate] a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the reentry . . . into the community.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). This pre-release placement may include a community correctional facility or in-home detention. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1), (2); 28 C.F.R. § 570.20.

         III. DISCUSSION

         Defendant requests a recommendation from the Court for the BOP to grant him participation in the Second Chance Act “at the earliest appropriate time” so that Defendant can be placed in a correctional facility and then home confinement. (Letter, ECF No. 112).[1]Defendant's request arises from his desire to prepare for re-entry into the community, to better assist ...


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.