Government’s Response to Defendant’s Second Motion to 

Extend Self-Surrender Date 

Page 1

BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

STUART A. WEXLER 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

Stuart.A.Wexler@usdoj.gov 

LEE F. LANGSTON 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

Lee.F.Langston@usdoj.gov 

1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Telephone: (503) 727-1000 

Attorneys for United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

WINSTON SHROUT, 

Defendant. 

3:15-cr-00438-JO 

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION TO 

DELAY SELF-SURRENDER DATE 

[ECF 176] 

 The United States of America, by and through Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney 

for the District of Oregon, and Stuart A. Wexler and Lee F. Langston, Trial Attorneys, Tax 

Division, hereby submits this Response to the Defendant’s emergency request to delay selfCase 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 177 Filed 11/26/18 Page 1 of 5
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Second Motion to 

Extend Self-Surrender Date 

Page 2

surrender (Doc. 176) and respectfully asks the Court to deny the motion to delay self-surrender 

and order the defendant to surrender as scheduled. 

This is the defendant’s third request to delay his self-surrender date. At sentencing, on 

October 22, 2018, the defendant asked to set a self-surrender date to some date after January 21, 

2019. That request was rejected by the Court. Next, on November 15, 2018, the defendant filed 

a motion to extend the self-surrender date to give counsel additional time to prepare a motion for 

bail pending appeal.1

 That motion was denied on November 19, 2018. In the instant motion, the 

defendant waited until the day of scheduled surrender, less than five hours before the deadline, to 

file the motion seeking to once again delay surrender for an indefinite period of time. 

The instant motion claims that a delay is necessary because the Bureau of Prisons has not 

yet designated a specific facility for the defendant. The motion states that the defendant was 

informed on November 19, 2018, to surrender himself to the US Marshals Service today. The 

motion provides no explanation for why the defendant chose to wait a week between receiving 

that email and the filing of this motion. 

This case has been pending since December 8, 2015. The defendant was convicted by 

the jury over eighteen months ago. This is the defendant’s sixth motion to continue since the 

date of conviction alone. The government submits that this motion is another step in the 

repeated and unjustified pattern of delay sought by the defense and it should be denied. 

 Prisoners have no right to be assigned to a particular prison facility after conviction. See 

Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983); Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244 

 

1

 Defense counsel further informed government counsel that if the motion to extend time to file was denied that he 

would file the motion for bail pending appeal prior to the surrender date. 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 177 Filed 11/26/18 Page 2 of 5
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Second Motion to 

Extend Self-Surrender Date 

Page 3

(1983)(holding that a state prisoner in Hawaii had no right to challenge assignment to a prison on 

the mainland); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976)(holding that an inmate has no 

constitutional right to be housed in any particular institution or unit within an institution). 

Indeed, following sentencing, the Bureau of Prisons has the sole responsibility in determining 

where an offender will be designated. See United States v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir. 

2011); 18 U.S.C. § 3621 (“The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner’s 

imprisonment.”). As a result, a “district court’s recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons is just 

that–a recommendation.” Ceballos, 671 F.3d at 856. 

 Accordingly, the defendant has no constitutional basis to challenge the assignment to a 

local facility. The Court made a recommendation that he be assigned to a particular facility but 

that is simply a recommendation. The Court has twice already confirmed the defendant’s 

surrender date. Despite being told that he would have to surrender to the US Marshals a week 

ago, the defendant waited until today to file a motion challenging that assignment. The 

inescapable conclusion is that this motion, like the six prior motions preceding it, is simply 

another attempt to put off the defendant facing the consequences for his criminal conduct. 

Accordingly, it should be denied. 

 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 177 Filed 11/26/18 Page 3 of 5
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Second Motion to 

Extend Self-Surrender Date 

Page 4

Dated: November 26, 2018 Respectfully submitted, 

 BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

 United States Attorney 

 _s/Lee F. Langston_______________ 

 LEE F. LANGSTON 

 STUART A. WEXLER 

 Trial Attorneys, Tax Division 

 202-353-0036 

 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 177 Filed 11/26/18 Page 4 of 5
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Second Motion to 

Extend Self-Surrender Date 

Page 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 26, 2018, I caused the foregoing to be filed under seal 

with the Clerk of the Court. I further certify that a copy and notification of such filing will be provided to 

counsel for the defendant by e-mail immediately upon filing. 

/s/ Lee F. Langston 

LEE F. LANGSTON 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 177 Filed 11/26/18 Page 5 of 5