Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cr-00624/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cr-00624-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bryan Keith Richardson
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRYAN KEITH RICHARDSON,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-cr-00624-SI-1 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR JUDICIAL 

RECOMMENDATION

Re: Dkt. No. 88

On August 27, 2018, defendant Bryan Keith Richardson, an incarcerated federal prisoner, 

filed a document entitled “Motion for Judicial Recommendation for Appropriate Relief.” Dkt. No. 

88. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion.

Defendant Richardson was charged with several counts of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), Unarmed 

Bank Robbery, by Grand Jury on May 4, 2009. Dkt. No. 1. On September 25, 2009, defendant 

pleaded guilty to eight counts of bank robbery. Dkt. Nos. 18-19. On February 12, 2010, the Court 

sentenced defendant to a 120-month term of imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, and 

a 3-year term of supervision for counts 1-8, to run concurrently. Dkt. No. 29. 

In the present motion, Richardson requests that the Court “order” the Bureau of Prisons 

(“BOP”) to set defendant’s time in the Second Chance Act RRC placement for 271-365 days, rather 

than the ordered 120 days. Dkt. No. 88 at 2. 

DISCUSSION

“The Bureau of Prisons has the statutory authority to choose the locations where prisoners 

serve their sentence.” U.S. v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing 18 

U.S.C. § 3621(b) (“The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner’s 

imprisonment.”)). 

Case 3:09-cr-00624-SI Document 94 Filed 01/30/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

While a [district court] judge has wide discretion in determining the length and type 

of sentence, the court has no jurisdiction to select the place where the sentence will 

be served. Authority to determine the place of confinement resides in the executive 

branch of the government and is delegated to the Bureau of Prisons. 

Id. (quoting U.S. v. Dragna, 746 F.2d 457, 458 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). Moreover, district 

court recommendations to the BOP are non-reviewable, and any appeal will be dismissed for lack 

of jurisdiction. Id.

The BOP is authorized to “designate any available penal or correctional facility . . . that the 

Bureau determines to be appropriate and suitable,” including halfway houses (i.e., RRCs). See

Rodriquez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), the BOP has 

authority to designate the place of an inmate’s imprisonment.”). The recommendations of the 

sentencing court to the BOP regarding where the sentence should be served are given only nonbinding weight. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).

As a discretionary matter, this Court declines to make a recommendation to the BOP 

concerning the length of defendant’s halfway house placement. Nearly ten years after this Court 

sentenced Richardson, the BOP is in a much better position than the Court to consider Richardson’s 

request in light of his circumstances and the availability and suitability of halfway house facilities.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the request for a recommendation to the BOP regarding 

halfway house placement is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cr-00624-SI Document 94 Filed 01/30/19 Page 2 of 2