United States v. Griffis
1:14-cr-00027
S.D. Ga.May 26, 2020Background
- Defendant Cory Milo Griffis requested the court to write a letter stating he should not be disqualified from CARES Act home confinement because of a prior sex-offense conviction.
- Request was filed by counsel (referencing a Psychological Evaluation) and docketed in the underlying criminal case.
- Attorney General directed the BOP (Mar. 26, 2020) to prioritize home confinement transfers during COVID-19.
- Statutory authority to transfer inmates to home confinement rests with the BOP (18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2); 34 U.S.C. § 60541) and the CARES Act vests discretion in the BOP Director.
- The court noted federal district courts lack authority to order placement; they may recommend facilities or programs but such recommendations are nonbinding.
- The court declined to write the requested letter or recommend placement and denied Griffis’s request, relying on its sentencing findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court can issue a letter/opinion supporting Griffis’s eligibility for CARES Act home confinement | Ask court to state Griffis does not pose unnecessary public-risk and should not be disqualified | Court lacks statutory authority to order or determine home confinement eligibility; that power belongs to BOP | Denied — district court may not order home confinement; authority rests with BOP |
| Whether the court should recommend a particular facility or program to BOP | Request the court formally endorse transfer/placement despite sex-offense conviction | Court can recommend but need not; recommendation is discretionary and nonbinding | Denied — court declines to recommend and relies on prior sentencing findings |
Key Cases Cited
- None — the opinion cited unpublished/WL decisions (e.g., Jones v. Woods; Brown v. Atkinson) but did not rely on any officially reported cases.