IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
: Cr. No. 89-160-23(NHJ) v. :
:
:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, :
:
:
Defendant. :
MOTION FOR JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATION FOR
PLACEMENT IN HOME CONFINEMENT
Defendant xxxxxxxxx, through undersigned counsel,
respectfully moves the court to recommend to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and to the United States Probation Office for the District of Maryland that he be released into the home detention program when he becomes eligible for release on November 10, 1996, and as grounds for his Motion, shows the court:
1. On February 15, 1996, this court re-sentenced Mr. XXXXXX to a term of imprisonment of 110 months. According to calculations by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Mr. XXXXXX is eligible for release to a halfway house or to home confinement on November 10, 1996.
2. Since his re-sentencing, Mr. XXXXXX has been incarcerated at the Federal Prison Camp at Cumberland, Maryland. He is community custody level, which is the lowest level of custody. He has not received any disciplinary infractions. He has been granted two furloughs, both of which have been taken without incident.
3. A number of factors support Mr. XXXXXX's release into home confinement. During his incarceration, he has been working to support his family, but his family's financial situation remains precarious. Mr. XXXXXX will be better able to return to his former occupation as an automobile mechanic if he is able to seek employment without the restrictions imposed by halfway house placement. It is important for Mr. XXXXXX to become gainfully employed as soon as possible after his release from confinement, in order to provide for his family. Mr. XXXXXX had no prior criminal convictions and the instant offense involved no violence. Therefore, Mr. XXXXXX's release to home confinement would pose no threat to community safety.(1) Mr. XXXXXX was scheduled for release to a work cadre program in Baltimore, Maryland shortly after his resentencing, but because the paperwork necessary for that placement was not completed in time, he was not released into that program. If he had been released into that program, he would have been eligible for home confinement in November.
4. The home confinement program offers substantial oversight by the United States Probation Office. In fact, there is no difference between a halfway house placement and home confinement with regard to the amount of control the office has over a released inmate. A violation of the terms of home confinement would result in the same sanctions as a violation of halfway house release.(2)
WHEREFORE, for these reasons, Mr. XXXXXX respectfully requests the court to make a recommendation to the federal Bureau of Prisons and the United States Probation Office for the District of Maryland that he be released to home confinement when he becomes eligible for halfway house placement.
Respectfully submitted,
A.J. KRAMER
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
__________________________
Reita Pendry
Assistant Federal Defender
625 Indiana Avenue, NW #550
Washington, D. C. 20004
(202)208-7500
1. In fact, when Mr. XXXXXX was resentenced by this court, the applicable guideline range was 97 to 121 months. The government did not oppose a sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range. Had the court exercised its discretion to sentence him at the low end of the guideline range, he would have been released into the community already. This supports the defense position that Mr. XXXXXX's release to home confinement poses no threat to the community.
2. Per an August 7, 1996 telephone conversation with Robert West, Mr. XXXXXX's case manager at the Federal Prison Camp in Cumberland, Maryland, the Probation Office exercises supervision over either type of release and the range of sanctions for violating either type of release are the same.