United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY ON PENDING MOTION
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant Daemaz L. Long's
(“Mr. Long”) Motion to Reduce Sentence under the
First Step Act of 2018 (Dkt. 74), and Petition for
Recommendation Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S 3624(c)(1)(2) and
3621(E) R.D.A.P. Completion for RRC and Home Confinement
Placement (Dkt. 77). For the reasons stated below, the
motions are denied.
Long entered a plea of guilty to Count One, Possession of
Heroin with Intent to Distribute. He was sentenced on April
25, 2018, in an amended judgement, to 57 months'
imprisonment, to be served concurrently with any imposed
state case (specifically, if convicted under cause number
48C03-1605-F5-936 in Madison County, Indiana, Circuit Court);
followed by four years of supervised release, the special
assessment fee of $100.00, and a fine of $500.00. (Dkt.71).
In the motions before the Court, Mr. Long seeks relief
pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, as well as 18 U.S.C.
§ 3624 (c)(1)(2) and § 3621(E). The Court will
address each motion.
Motion to Reduce Sentence under the First Step
Act of 2018 (Dkt. 74)
December 21, 2018, the President signed the First Step Act of
2018, which promotes recidivism reduction programs; amends
sentencing provisions including 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1); expands the “safety
valve” applicable to mandatory minimum sentencing
provisions; makes the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010
retroactively applicable; and includes additional provisions
related to sentencing and imprisonment. As noted by the
Government in their Response, Title I of the First Step Act
aims to reduce recidivism of federal inmates by providing
access to “evidence-based recidivism reduction
programs” and other “productive activities,
” and affords time credits that selected inmates who
participate in such programs and activities may use to reduce
time served in prison and receive other benefits.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3631, et seq. Title I
of the Act, provides that within 210 days after the First
Step Act becoming law, the Attorney General is required to
develop a “Risk and Needs Assessment System”.
Then, within 180 days of the release of the risk and needs
assessment system, and periodically thereafter, the Bureau of
Prisons must conduct a risk assessment of every prisoner.
January 16, 2019, Mr Long filed a letter which is treated as
a motion to reduce his sentence under the provision of the
First Step Act. In particular, he requests additional
work-release time based on his completion of various programs
in the prison and other behavioral considerations.
Unfortunately this request is premature because the United
States Attorney General has not yet developed the risk
assessment tool required for implementation of this portion
of the First Step Act. The First Step Act reforms that would
allow Mr. Long's request to be granted have not yet been
implemented; accordingly, his motion to reduce sentence is
denied as premature.
Motion for Residential Reentry Center Placement (Dkt.
second motion, Mr. Long asks the Court to recommend that he
serve his remaining time in a Residential Reentry Center
(“RRC”) and home confinement placement. He relies
on Title 18 U.S.C. § 3624 (c)(1)(2) and § 3621(E)
as the basis for this request. Under the Second Chance Act,
18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), the Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) has the authority to place inmates in
community confinement facilities during the final portion of
their sentences for up to 12 months. Specifically:
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent
practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving a term of
imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of that
term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will
afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to
and prepare for the reentry of that prisoner into the
community. Such conditions may include a community
Id. There is no § 3621(E), however, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3621(b) list the factors the BOP must consider in
deciding whether an inmate should be placed in a community
correctional facility. Those factors to be considered are:
(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 was determined to be warranted or
recommending a specific type of facility; and (5) any
pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing
Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).
Government points out in its Response, it is not the
Court's role to make RRC and home detention
determinations. See Davis v. United States, No.
17-cr-294-DRH, 2017 WL 2214874, at *2 (S.D. Ill. May 19,
2017) (“Petitioner's request in his Petition that
this Court make an RRC determination in place of the BOP, it
will not, as it is not the role of this Court to conduct an
independent review of the § 3621(b) factors and make a
de novo determination as to Petitioner's
placement in a halfway house.”). Mr. Long has not
indicated whether the BOP has actually decided that he is
eligibile for placement in an RRC for any amount of time. It
is therefore unclear to this Court whether this request is
ripe for review. While the Court applauds Mr. Long for the
progress that he has made, his motion fails to allege a basis
which would allow the Court to grant the relief requested.
Accordingly, the motion for residential reentry center
placement must be denied.
reasons stated above, Mr. Long's Motion to Reduce
Sentence under the First Step Act of 2018 (Dkt. ), and
Petition for Recommendation Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3624(c)(1)(2) and 3621(E) R.D.A.P. Completion ...