United States v. Jackson
Criminal No. 2016-0005
| D.D.C. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Leon Jackson pleaded guilty (Nov 2016) to conspiracy to distribute/possess with intent to distribute narcotics (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846) and conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343).
- Sentenced (Jan 2017) to 56 months’ imprisonment and 48 months’ supervised release.
- In Dec 2017, Jackson (pro se) requested the court to recommend that the BOP place him in an RRC/halfway house for the final 12 months of his sentence.
- The Government opposed; it argued the court lacks authority to order placement and Jackson had not shown he merited 12 months in an RRC given his serious offenses.
- Court considered statutory scheme: 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (BOP designations; court recommendations nonbinding) and § 3582(c) (limits on modifying sentences), and found recommendation power is advisory and not a sentence modification.
- Court denied the request on the merits, concluding Jackson failed to show he was the rare prisoner entitled to 12 months in an RRC and noting inconsistency between his pro se request and earlier sentencing memorandum about post-release support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may issue a post‑sentencing recommendation to the BOP for RRC placement | Court lacks authority to mandate placement; § 3582(c) limits post‑sentencing modifications | A recommendation is not a modification of the sentence and thus is permissible after sentencing | Court: recommendation power is advisory under § 3621(b) and not a § 3582(c) sentence modification; court may issue advisory recommendations but they are nonbinding |
| Whether the court should recommend Jackson receive 12 months in an RRC | Government: Jackson’s offenses are serious and he has not shown entitlement to unusually long RRC placement | Jackson: age, lack of funds, and limited job skills justify 12 months to reduce recidivism | Court denied recommendation on the merits—Jackson failed to demonstrate he is the “rare” inmate warranting 12 months in RRC; prior sentencing record inconsistent with risk claims |
| Whether the Second Chance Act entitles Jackson to the requested relief | Gov: Act requires individualized BOP consideration, not judicial entitlement | Jackson invoked the Second Chance Act to support placement request | Court: Second Chance Act does not create judicially enforceable right to specific RRC placement; BOP retains placement authority; Jackson made no administrative-exhaustion showing |
| Whether Jackson can pursue relief absent exhaustion of BOP remedies | Gov: administrative remedies and BOP evaluation are prerequisites to habeas challenge | Jackson did not allege exhaustion or BOP denial | Court noted exhaustion requirement (citing Vasquez) and concluded Jackson cannot rely on Second Chance Act without showing BOP process steps |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se filings are to be liberally construed)
- Vasquez v. Strada, 684 F.3d 431 (3d Cir. 2012) (prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before habeas challenge to RRC placement)