1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20089-1 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

LAHMAL MOSES BELL, 

 Defendant. 

________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL 

RECOMMENDATION FOR HOME CONFINEMENT OR PLACEMENT 

IN A RESIDENTIAL REENTRY CENTER (ECF Nos. 163 & 167) 

 On May 6, 2015, Defendant Lahmal Moses Bell pleaded guilty to three 

offenses: a Hobbs Act robbery on January 18, 2015, using a firearm during and in 

relation to a crime of violence (his Hobbs Act robbery on January 18, 2015), and a 

Hobbs Act robbery on February 1, 2015. (See Rule 11 Plea Agreement, ECF No. 55, 

PageID.136; Judgment, ECF No. 104, PageID.614.) Bell’s sentencing guidelines 

range was 141 to 155 months imprisonment. (See Rule 11 Plea Agreement, ECF No. 

55, PageID.138, 150.) On December 15, 2015, this Court sentenced Bell to 114 

months imprisonment: 30 months for each Hobbs Act robbery offense, to be served 

concurrently; and 84 months for using a firearm during and in relation to the first 

Hobbs Act robbery offense, to be served consecutively to his robbery counts. (See 

Judgment, ECF No. 104, PageID.614–615.) Bell was also sentenced to three years 

Case 2:15-cr-20089-MFL-DRG ECF No. 168 filed 06/17/20 PageID.1423 Page 1 of 4
2 

of supervised release. (See id., PageID.616.) While incarcerated, Bell has been 

disciplined twice for stealing. (See Bell Discipinary Record, ECF No. 166-1, 

PageID.1412.) Bell’s anticipated release date is March 28, 2023. (See Sentence 

Computation, ECF No. 167, PageID.1416.) Bell is currently incarcerated at FCI 

McDowell. (See 5/15/20 Mot. for Judicial Recommendation, ECF No. 167, 

PageID.1415.) 

 Bell has filed a Motion for Judicial Recommendation for Home Confinement 

or Placement in a Residential Reentry Center. (See id., PageID.1413–1415.) Bell’s 

motion was dated on April 30, 2020, and it was filed on the Court’s docket on May 

15, 2020. (See id., PageID.1415.) Bell also submitted a second, nearly identical 

version of his motion, which was filed on the Court’s docket on May 18, 2020. (See 

5/18/20 Mot. for Judicial Recommendation, ECF No. 163.) Bell argues that he 

should be released because he has taken substantial steps toward rehabilitation and 

is a low-risk, first-time offender who should be transferred to home confinement due 

to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. (See 5/15/20 Mot. for Judicial 

Recommendation, ECF No. 167, PageID.1414.) 

 Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2), the Bureau of Prisons (the “BOP”) may place 

a prisoner “in home confinement for the shorter of 10 percent of the term of 

imprisonment of that prisoner or 6 months.” Bell would not typically be eligible for 

home confinement under § 3624 based on his time served to date. On March 27, 

Case 2:15-cr-20089-MFL-DRG ECF No. 168 filed 06/17/20 PageID.1424 Page 2 of 4
3 

2020, however, Congress temporarily permitted the Attorney General to “lengthen 

the maximum amount of time that a prisoner may be placed in home confinement.” 

Conavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), Pub. L. No. 

116-136, § 12003(b)(2), 134 Stat. 236 (Mar. 27, 2020). “[T]he authority to make 

this determination is squarely allocated to the Attorney General, under whose 

authority is the Bureau of Prisons.” United States v. Doshi, No. 13-cr-20349, 2020 

WL 15271816, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2020); see also United States v. Barnes, 

No. 16-cr-20308, 2020 WL 2733885, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 26, 2020) (“[T]his 

Court does not have authority to order Barnes released to home confinement under 

the CARES Act.”). “That being said, the BOP routinely relies on judicial 

recommendations that express the district judge’s determination of how a defendant 

should serve his time.” Doshi, 2020 WL 15271816, at *1; see also United States v. 

Rahim, No. 16-cr-20433, 2020 WL 2065516, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2020) (“One 

of the factors [for the BOP to consider when evaluating a prisoner’s request for 

release to home confinement] is ‘any statement by the court that imposed the 

sentence . . . recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate.’” 

(quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4))). 

 The Court does not recommend that Bell should be released to home 

confinement or a residential reentry center. Rather, Bell’s violent offenses, the 

impact of those offenses on his victims, his stealing infractions while incarcerated, 

Case 2:15-cr-20089-MFL-DRG ECF No. 168 filed 06/17/20 PageID.1425 Page 3 of 4
4 

and the nearly three years remaining on his sentence, in combination with one 

another, weigh against recommending such release for Bell at this time. 

 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Bell’s Motions for Judicial 

Recommendation for Home Confinement or Placement in a Residential Reentry 

Center (ECF Nos. 163 & 167). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: June 17, 2020 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on June 17, 2020, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9761 

Case 2:15-cr-20089-MFL-DRG ECF No. 168 filed 06/17/20 PageID.1426 Page 4 of 4