Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cr-05468/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cr-05468-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Luis Rodriguez
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff/ )

Respondent, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JOSE LUIS RODRIGUEZ, )

)

)

Defendant/ )

Movant. )

)

)

No. CR-F-99-5468 OWW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3621

(Doc. 22)

Movant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a

controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On July 9, 2001, Judge Robert E. Coyle

sentenced Movant to 108 months imprisonment and recommended that

movant participate in the 500-hour Bureau of Prisons Substance

Abuse Treatment Program.

On June 4, 2007, Movant filed a motion for reduction of his

Case 1:99-cr-05468-OWW Document 23 Filed 06/18/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) provides: 1

The period a prisoner convicted of a

nonviolent offense remains in custody after

successfully completing a treatment program

may be reduced by the Bureau of Prisons, but

such reduction may not be more than one year

from the term the prisoner must otherwise

serve.

2

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B). 

1

Movant submits a copy of a Certificate of Completion of the

500-Hour Residential Drug Abuse Program issued to Movant by the

BOP on May 3, 2007. Movant contends that, because he is an

illegal alien, the BOP does not have authority under Section

3621(e)(2)(B) to reduce his sentence, that only the sentencing

court has that authority, and that “[a]t the time the Defendant

was sentenced, Judge Coyle made an agreement in open Court that

upon the Defendant completing the Residential Substance Abuse

Treatment Program, he would reduce his term of imprisonment.”

Movant’s contention is without merit. At movant’s

sentencing by Judge Coyle on July 9, 2001, the following

occurred:

MR. REYES: ... The only thing we would like

to add to the report, your Honor, basically

is that the report identifies that at the

time of the arrest Mr. Jose Luis Rodriguez

was extremely high on drugs. Crack cocaine

appeared to be his drug of choice, and the

recommendation from probation identifies that

in his drug history, and it recommends a 500-

hour drug treatment program while in the

Bureau of Prisons. My understanding has been

that sometimes –- he is a noncitizen –- that

they may or may not give him the full benefit

or credit of that 500-hour program reduction. 

So we would intend that when he does commence

Case 1:99-cr-05468-OWW Document 23 Filed 06/18/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

that program, that we may come back to this

court, if they do not, with the hope that

this court would give him some form of credit

or some form of reduction by way of Rule 35

or otherwise for his participation. That is

a Bureau of Prisons issue, but if they do not

give it to him, we would like this court to

later on do something, and we would like to

come back to this court. I wish to identify

that now.

THE COURT: When reviewing the probation

report, unless I am convinced otherwise, the

court will recommend the Bureau of Prisons

500-hour substance abuse program that appears

to be an appropriate and proper

recommendation. If the Bureau of Prisons

does not follow the recommendation and there

is any return her for any purpose, Mr. Reyes,

the only comment that I would have would be

in a –- whatever information you had that

there was an improper refusal, I can’t run

the Bureau of Prisons, but on the other hand

if –-

MR. REYES: If he doesn’t, though, we would

just like to get him the appropriate credit,

and maybe we can do that. If it doesn’t come

out of BOP, may it can come out of this

court.

THE COURT: I doubt that, but we will address

that when we get to that point, and hopefully

we won’t.

...

THE COURT: Mr. Rodriguez, is there anything

you wish to say in your own behalf, sir?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: Ms. Servatius?

MS. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, as to the drug

treatment program, it sounds like a good

idea, and I think the BOP would have no

problems putting the defendant in it. My

experience is the problem comes in that

normally BOP, if the person completes it

successfully, might release the individual

Case 1:99-cr-05468-OWW Document 23 Filed 06/18/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

and serve the last six months of their

sentence in a halfway house; however, the

defendant, because he is an illegal alien,

doesn’t qualify for that because he will be

going into INS custody. If he is serious

about getting his, there is no provision in

the law for coming back to the court under

Rule 35. The defendant’s only recourse would

be a 24(b)(1) if the BOP wrongly denied him

the drug treatment program, but the BOP

decision has been upheld when they don’t

release him for six months, and the Ninth

Circuit says there is no problem there. 

Under 2255 it wouldn’t apply, because it

would just deal with BOP policy. So as long

as the defendant knows up front that he is

probably not going to be successful coming

back to this court, I think that I have no

problem with the recommendation for the drug

program, and I would ask that because he has

been given such a great deal on his sentence,

instead of taking the 20-year mandatory

minimum, because of his prior, down to 108, I

would ask the court to follow the

recommendation of the probation office.

The sentencing transcript establishes that Judge Coyle made

no promise to Movant that Judge Coyle would reduce Movant’s

sentence if Movant successfully completed the BOP drug abuse

treatment program. 

Section 3621(e)(2)(B) does not provide this Court with

authority to reduce Movant’s sentence because the statute

expressly limits that authority to the Bureau of Prisons. 

Movant’s contention that, in the case of an illegal alien who

successfully completes the BOP drug abuse treatment program, only

the Court has authority to reduce the sentence is belied by the

terms of Section 3621(e)(3)(B) and is unsupported by any other

authority. 

///

Case 1:99-cr-05468-OWW Document 23 Filed 06/18/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

For the reasons stated above, Movant’s motion for reduction

of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e)(2)(B) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:99-cr-05468-OWW Document 23 Filed 06/18/07 Page 5 of 5