Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04569/USCOURTS-ca3-09-04569-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keynan Green
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

ALD-114 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 09-4569

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

KEYNAN GREEN,

Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. No. 2-05-cr-00544)

District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell

 

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

February 4, 2010

Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 22, 2010 )

 

OPINION

 

PER CURIAM

Keynan Green, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion to reduce his

sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which the District Court granted on

September 25, 2008. On September 19, 2009, Green filed a motion to request that the

Case: 09-4569 Document: 003110029739 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
 To the extent that Green intended to appeal from the order issued on September 25, 1

2008, his notice of appeal is not timely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).

2

District Court issue a court order for the government to remove separation restrictions. 

According to Green, separation restrictions were in place that deprived him and his codefendants from being classified to a federal institution that was closer to home. On

September 29, 2009, the District Court denied Green’s request. On November 30, 2009,

Green filed the instant notice of appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the District Court’s

September 29, 2009 order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Smith, 445 F.3d 1

713, 716 (3d Cir. 2006). We may summarily affirm if this appeal presents no substantial

question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

In its order denying relief, the District Court noted that “the question of whether,

and to what extent, separation restrictions should exist [is] within the province of the

Government and the Bureau of Prisons.” We agree. Generally, prisoners do not have

inherent liberty interests in particular modes, places, or features of confinement, including

housing placements. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466-68 (1983), abrogated by

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483 (1995); see also Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88

n.9 (1976) (“Congress has given federal prison officials full discretion to control

[prisoner classification and corresponding housing assignments], and petitioner has no

legitimate statutory or constitutional entitlement sufficient to invoke due process”);

Case: 09-4569 Document: 003110029739 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
3

Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) (no due process protections required upon

discretionary transfer of state inmates between prisons). Green has not shown how he is

otherwise entitled to relief.

Accordingly, as no substantial question is presented by this appeal, we will

summarily affirm. 

Case: 09-4569 Document: 003110029739 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2010