1 

17-3706-cr 

United States v. Lawrence

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER 

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A 

SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY 

FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN 

CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE 

EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION 

ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON 

ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held 

at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 

York, on the 8th day of November, two thousand eighteen. 

PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., 

 PIERRE N. LEVAL, 

CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, 

 Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellee, 

v. 

 17-3706-cr 

LLAMAR LAWRENCE, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

ROMARIO BURKE, RENAIR MARTIN, 

 Defendants.

_____________________________________ 

FOR APPELLEE: JESSICA K. FENDER (Daniel B. Tehrani, on the 

brief), Assistant United States Attorney for the 

Southern District of New York, New York, 
2 

NY, for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States 

Attorney for the Southern District of New 

York, New York, NY 

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: WALTER MACK, ESQ., 

 Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack, New York, NY 

Appeal from an October 28, 2017, order denying Llamar Lawrence’s motion to 

direct the United States Bureau of Prisons to transfer Lawrence to a prison facility in New 

York City (Rakoff, J.). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 

AND DECREED that this appeal is DISMISSED. 

Llamar Lawrence appeals a district court order denying his motion to be transferred 

to a federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) facility in New York City. He claims the district 

court erred by permitting the BOP to transfer him to a Pennsylvania facility despite its 

order directing the BOP to keep Lawrence in New York until final judgment was issued. 

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, but we 

include a short summary of the procedural background to explain our decision. For the 

reasons stated below, we dismiss Lawrence’s appeal. 

I. Procedural Background 

On March 31, 2017, Lawrence pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). That offense provides for a mandatory minimum term of sixty 

months’ imprisonment. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Lawrence had been held in state custody since 

January 22, 2014, for the same conduct, but no state conviction had been obtained. At his 

July 19, 2017, sentencing hearing in this case, Lawrence argued for a downward adjustment 

to his 60-month mandatory minimum sentence to account for the time he spent in state 

custody. The district court reserved its decision on the matter, explaining that it was unsure 

the court could grant such relief, and that if the BOP provided the downward adjustment it 

would moot the issue. Pending final judgment, the court ordered that Lawrence be housed 

in the Metropolitan Correctional Center (“MCC”) in New York, after which, the court 

noted, “all I can do is recommend” a detention facility. 

 On August 4, 2017, the district court entered an order reaffirming Lawrence’s 60-

month mandatory minimum sentence and urged the BOP to complete a timely calculation 

of Lawrence’s sentence. The district court also gave the parties 10 days from the final BOP 

calculation to file a motion to “correct, modify, adjust or perhaps downward depart from” 

the calculation in the event the BOP did not credit the state period of incarceration, but 

noted that its order was not an “implication . . . that the Court has or has not the power to 

grant such relief.” The court entered final judgment four days later, incorporating the terms 
3 

of its August 4, 2017, order and recommending that Lawrence serve his sentence in the 

MCC. The next day, the BOP issued a preliminary calculation of Lawrence’s sentence, 

which included the credit Lawrence had requested for his time in state custody. On August 

30, 2017, the BOP informed Lawrence that he could not remain in the MCC because the 

BOP designated him to a medium-security institution, which the MCC was not. 

Although the BOP’s decision to credit Lawrence’s time in state custody mooted his 

downward-adjustment request, his counsel objected to the BOP’s designation, and 

requested a conference with the district court to review the matter. During that conference, 

the district court urged the government to seek a statement of reasons from the BOP 

explaining its designation. When the government contacted the BOP, however, it learned 

that Lawrence had already been transferred to a Pennsylvania facility. Lawrence filed a 

letter with the district court on September 22, 2017, asking it to order the BOP to return 

Lawrence to the MCC. Before the district court could respond to the letter, the BOP issued 

its final sentencing calculation, which, like its preliminary decision, credited Lawrence for 

his time in state custody. The district court contacted the parties, concluding that “it appears 

that defendant’s application is moot, given that the purpose of the motion was to ensure 

access to counsel should he have any objection to the Bureau of Prison’s computation of 

his sentence, and that computation is now completed and is consistent with defendant’s 

previously-expressed wishes.” 

 Lawrence filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming his transfer to Pennsylvania 

“is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law[,] . . . 

[violates] Lawrence’s constitutional right to due process of law . . . [,] the direct order of 

this Court, and [is] in excess of the statutory authority of the Department of Justice and 

Bureau of Prisons, without observance of procedure required by law, unsupported by 

substantial evidence and unwarranted by the facts, all in violation of Title 5, U.S.C., § 706.”

He also argued that the “Bureau of Prisons has transported and designated defendant 

Lawrence in violation of” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). 

The district court denied Lawrence’s motion for reconsideration, explaining that 

“[t]his Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over defendant’s motion. [Section 

3625 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code], relating to decisions by the Bureau of Prisons, expressly 

states that Section 706 [of the APA] does ‘not apply to the making of any determination, 

decision, or order under this subchapter.’” Instead, Lawrence could bring his claim, after 

exhausting administrative remedies, “as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” 

Lawrence timely appealed that order. While his appeal was pending, Lawrence was 

released from BOP custody on October 26, 2018, because he completed his sentence of 

incarceration.1

 

1

 Upon release, Lawrence was taken into the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 
4 

II. Analysis 

 Lawrence renews his BOP transfer request on appeal. He insists that the district 

court erred by mischaracterizing his arguments as challenges to the BOP’s designation 

decision despite his arguing then, as he argues now on appeal, only that the BOP violated 

the district court’s August 4th order by transferring him out of New York and that the BOP 

failed to comply with certain statutory requirements when making its designation 

determination. But whether formulated as a challenge to the BOP’s compliance with a 

judicial order or its alleged violation of statutory restrictions, Lawrence’s arguments are 

now moot: he was released from the BOP in October 2018 and thus no longer has a 

sentence or designation to challenge. See United States v. Ben Zvi, 242 F.3d 89, 99 (2d Cir. 

2001) (finding a sentencing challenge moot because Appellant was “no longer incarcerated 

and a post-release sentencing correction cannot alleviate injury that resulted from the 

earlier incarceration.”). 

For the reasons stated above the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 

Clerk of Court