1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20242 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

KAVIN STINSON, 

 

 Defendant 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL 

RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 66) 

On December 1, 2021, Defendant Kavin Stinson requested this Court’s 

recommendation, under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b), that Stinson serve the final twelve 

months of his sentence in a residential reentry center and/or home confinement. (See 

Mot., ECF No. 66.) The Government opposed. (See Resp., ECF No. 68.) After 

reviewing both parties’ arguments, the Court declines to offer its recommendation. 

 The Second Chance Act, Pub. L. No. 110-199, § 251(a), 122 Stat. 657 (2008), 

amended 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) to provide that the Bureau of Prisons shall “ensure 

that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final months 

of that term (not to exceed twelve 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3642(c)(1). An inmate's placement at 

Case 2:15-cr-20242-MFL-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.315 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1 of 4
2 

any particular facility is solely within the authority of the Bureau of Prisons. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3621(b). “The decision to place an inmate in a pre-release community 

confinement is discretionary and will be ‘determined on an individual basis’ 

according to the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).” United States v. George, 2018 WL 

2148179, at *2 (E.D. Mich. May 10, 2018); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c). These 

factors are as follows: 

(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— 

(A) concerning the purposes for which the 

sentence to imprisonment was determined to 

be warranted; or 

(B) recommending a type of penal or 

correctional facility as appropriate; and 

(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the 

Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(2) of 

title 28. 

18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). The statute further provides that “[a]ny order, 

recommendation, or request by a sentencing court that a convicted person serve a 

term of imprisonment in a community corrections facility shall have no binding 

effect on the authority of the Bureau under this section to determine or change the 

place of imprisonment of that person.” Id. 

Case 2:15-cr-20242-MFL-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.316 Filed 03/23/22 Page 2 of 4
3 

 Under the circumstances of this case, the Court is not inclined to make a 

recommendation regarding Stinson’s placement. The Court notes that, in its 

opposition, the Government raised serious concerns as to whether Stinson is an 

appropriate candidate for such a recommendation. (See id., PageID.297–299.) In 

light of these concerns, the Court concludes that the Bureau of Prisons is in the best 

position to determine whether placement in a residential reentry center or home 

confinement is appropriate for Stinson. See United States v. Franklin, 2019 WL 

4942033, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 8, 2019) (deferring to Bureau of Prisons regarding 

placement in residential reentry center or home confinement); see also George, 2018 

WL 2148179 at *3 (“The BOP has the most complete and accurate information 

regarding the five factors to make an individual determination regarding Defendant's 

placement.”). Accordingly, the Court does not see it fit to weigh in, either for or 

against, any particular placement. 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Stinson’s Motion for Judicial 

Recommendation to the Federal Bureau of Prisons for 12 Months RRC Placement – 

Six Months Halfway House and Six Months Home Confinement (ECF No. 66). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: March 23, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cr-20242-MFL-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.317 Filed 03/23/22 Page 3 of 4
4 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on March 23, 2022, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126 

Case 2:15-cr-20242-MFL-MKM ECF No. 71, PageID.318 Filed 03/23/22 Page 4 of 4