UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

OMAR LOZA

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:15-cr-086-6-JD-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Omar Loza’s request for home confinement 

due to the COVID-19 pandemic. See Letter, p. 1, DE 339. For the reasons stated below, the 

Defendant’s request is DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND

On June 6, 2016, the Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute 

cocaine. See Plea Agreement, p. 3, DE 136. On November 16, 2016, the Court sentenced the 

Defendant to 151 months of imprisonment. See DE 226. 

On May 28, 2020, the Defendant requested that he “be released immediately to home 

confinement.” Letter, p. 1, DE 339. The Defendant stated that he was concerned about the 

ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and how it may affect his health. See id. The Court construed this 

as a request for compassionate release and ordered the Government to file a response. See Order, 

DE 342. On June 9, 2020, the Government filed a Response in which it argued that (1) the 

Defendant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and (2) the request for home 

confinement was improper. See Response, DE 343.

II. DISCUSSION

The Defendant’s request for home confinement is denied. In relevant part, 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c) empowers the district court to modify a term of imprisonment if “extraordinary and 

compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). “In the context of 

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00086-JD-MGG document 344 filed 06/30/20 page 1 of 3
2

the COVID-19 pandemic, § 3582(c)(1)(A) contemplates a sentence reduction for specific 

individuals based on the individuals’ particular circumstances of where he is housed and his 

personal health conditions.” United States v. Stewart, No. 3:13-CR-126, 2020 WL 3428033, at 

*1 (N.D. Ind. June 23, 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). “While compassionate 

release—that is, a reduction in sentence—is governed by § 3582(c)(1)(A), the location where a 

sentence is served is not. Authority for determining the location where a sentence is served 

(including home confinement) is given to the Bureau of Prisons.” United States v. Hawkins, No. 

2:17-CR-134, 2020 WL 3264115, at *2 (N.D. Ind. June 17, 2020) (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b), 

3624(c)(2)). “The Bureau of Prisons alone has the statutory authority to designate a defendant’s 

place of imprisonment, including placement in home confinement.” United States v. Council, 

No. 1:14-CR-14-5, 2020 WL 3097461, at *7 (N.D. Ind. June 11, 2020)) (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 

3621(b), 3624(c)(2)). “The Court does not have the authority to order the remainder of 

Defendant’s sentence to be served on home confinement.” United States v. Maldonado, No. 

2:10-CR-218, 2020 WL 3469736, at *1 (N.D. Ind. June 25, 2020).

In this case, the Defendant requests home confinement due to the ongoing COVID-19 

pandemic. However, as explained above, the Court does not have the authority to determine the 

location of the Defendant’s sentence. See Hawkins, 2020 WL 3264115, at *2. Rather, only the 

Bureau of Prisons has the authority to designate the Defendant’s place of imprisonment, 

including placement in home confinement. Council, 2020 WL 3097461, at *7. Accordingly, the

Court denies the Defendant’s request for home confinement. 

However, the Court notes that the Defendant is a pro se prisoner. Further, the Court 

construed the Defendant’s relatively informal letter as a request for compassionate release under

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Thus, in an exercise of discretion, the Defendant has leave of court to file a

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00086-JD-MGG document 344 filed 06/30/20 page 2 of 3
3

renewed motion for compassionate release. Any such request should discuss whether the 

Defendant exhausted his administrative remedies. Further, the Defendant should discuss his 

physical health and the current condition of his prison. To the extent that the Defendant finds

caselaw or documentary evidence favorable to his request, he should cite this material within his 

motion for compassionate release.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s request for home confinement [DE 339] is 

DENIED. Consistent with this Opinion and Order, the Defendant has leave of court to file a 

Renewed Motion for Compassionate Release.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: June 30, 2020

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Chief Judge

United States District Court

USDC IN/ND case 3:15-cr-00086-JD-MGG document 344 filed 06/30/20 page 3 of 3