UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Anthony Ray Gandy, 

Defendant. 

________________________________/ 

Case No. 15-20338 

Judith E. Levy 

United States District Judge 

Mag. Judge Mona K. Majzoub 

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATION 

ON RESIDENTIAL REENTRY CENTER PLACEMENT [264] 

In March 2017, a jury found Defendant Anthony Ray Gandy guilty 

of numerous offenses, including mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail 

fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to commit identity theft. 

(ECF No. 132.) The Court sentenced Defendant to a total of 80 months in 

custody on January 23, 2018. (ECF No. 215.) Defendant began serving 

his sentence on February 27, 2018, and is currently incarcerated at 

Federal Medical Center (FMC) Lexington in Lexington, Kentucky. (ECF 

Case 5:15-cr-20338-JEL-MKM ECF No. 268 filed 10/29/20 PageID.3768 Page 1 of 5
2 

No. 257, PageID.3660.) His current release date is projected to be October 

27, 2023. (Id.) 

On June 23, 2020, the Court denied Defendant Anthony Ray 

Gandy’s motion for compassionate release. (ECF No. 258.) On August 12, 

2020, the Court denied Defendant’s subsequent motion for home 

confinement because it did not have authority to grant the requested 

relief. (ECF No. 263.) Defendant now seeks a judicial recommendation 

for residential reentry center (RRC) placement. (ECF No. 264.) For the 

foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

Under the Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110–199, § 251, 

122 Stat. 657 (2008), the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) may 

place an incarcerated individual in an RRC up to twelve months prior to 

their release. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1); see also Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 

508, 514 (6th Cir. 2009). Such placement is intended to “afford that 

[individual] a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the 

reentry of that [individual] into the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1). 

While the First Step Act of 2018 elaborated on the appropriate risk 

assessment levels for individuals placed in prerelease custody, it did not 

Case 5:15-cr-20338-JEL-MKM ECF No. 268 filed 10/29/20 PageID.3769 Page 2 of 5
3 

alter BOP’s authority to make determinations related to prerelease 

custody or provide individuals with a right to RRC placement. Pub. L. 

No. 115–391, § 102, 132 Stat. 514 (2018); see also United States v. Parks, 

No. 1:17CR137, 2019 WL 5085968, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 10, 2019). 

In determining whether placement in a residential reentry center 

or other prerelease custody is appropriate, BOP conducts an 

individualized assessment based on the five factors set out in § 3621(b). 

28 C.F.R. § 570.22; see also Lovett v. Hogsten, No. 09-5605, 2009 WL 

5851205, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 29, 2009). One of those factors is “any 

statement by the court that imposed the sentence . . . recommending a 

type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate.”1 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3621(b)(4). However, “[a]ny order, recommendation, or request by a 

sentencing court that a convicted person serve a term of imprisonment in 

1 Courts in this District are divided over whether issuing such a 

recommendation after sentencing is appropriate. Compare United States v. Hall, No. 

2:17-CR-20331-TGB, 2019 WL 3334564, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 25, 2019) (Berg, J.) 

(recommending defendant serve the last 12 months of his sentence in an RRC) with 

United States v. Tipton, No. 14-20142, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49178, at *2 (E.D. Mich. 

Mar. 26, 2018) (Edmunds, J.) (“Defendant has not shown that the Court has authority 

to make a judicial placement recommendation.”). However, the text of § 3621(b)(4) 

does not limit judicial recommendations to those made at sentencing. Instead, it 

provides that BOP must consider “any statement by the court that imposed the 

sentence”—not just those made at sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4) (emphasis 

added). 

Case 5:15-cr-20338-JEL-MKM ECF No. 268 filed 10/29/20 PageID.3770 Page 3 of 5
4 

a community corrections facility shall have no binding effect” on BOP. 

18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); c.f. Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 331 (2011);

United States v. Townsend, 631 F. App’x 373, 378 (6th Cir. 2015). 

The appropriate time period for a judicial recommendation of this 

nature is 17 to 19 months before an individual’s projected release date, 

when BOP conducts its review for potential RRC placement. See Galvin 

v. Sepanek, No. 12-CV-119-HRW, 2014 WL 4230467, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 

25, 2014) (quoting Ramirez v. Eichenlaub, No. 06–CV–1493, 2008 WL 

4791892, 3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 30, 2008)); see also Hall, 2019 WL 3334564, 

at *1 (noting that Hall’s previous motion for a judicial recommendation 

had been denied because he was not within 17 to 19 months of his 

projected release date). By adopting BOP’s timeline for determining the 

appropriate length of RRC placement, a court ensures that it has a more 

complete record of the defendant’s time in custody before making its 

recommendation. 

Defendant has served approximately 32 months of his original 80-

month sentence and will not be eligible for placement in an RRC until 

October 27, 2022, at the earliest. (See ECF No. 257, PageID.3660, 3673) 

The Court applauds Defendant for his efforts thus far to gain skills that 

Case 5:15-cr-20338-JEL-MKM ECF No. 268 filed 10/29/20 PageID.3771 Page 4 of 5
5 

will assist him in being productive and successful following his release. 

However, because there are still more than 35 months until Defendant’s 

protected release date, his motion for a recommendation from the Court 

is premature. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for a judicial recommendation for 

RRC placement is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant may 

renew this motion with the Court when he is within 19 months of his 

projected release date. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 29, 2020 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY 

United States District Judge 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 29, 2020. 

s/William Barkholz 

WILLIAM BARKHOLZ 

Case Manager 

Case 5:15-cr-20338-JEL-MKM ECF No. 268 filed 10/29/20 PageID.3772 Page 5 of 5