RESPONSE in Opposition by USA as to Dara Buck re 55 MOTION to Reduce Sentence (GOVERNMENTS… — USA v. Buck (Dkt. 59)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia · No. 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR · Doc. 59 · 2023-09-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
SAVANNAH DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
DARA BUCK 
 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
  CR422-065 
   
   
 
GOVERNMENT’S SURRESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO  
DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUED REPLY  
 
Although docketed as a motion for sentence reduction, the government 
construes defendant Dara Buck’s latest filing as a reply brief in support of her 
pending 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion.1 (Doc. 55.)   
First, the government notes that Buck did not file a notice of her intention to 
reply, as required by S.D.G.A. Local Rule 7.6.  For this reason, the Court may strike 
her filing. 
In any event, the government continues to assert her motion should be denied 
for the reasons stated in its original response, as well as in its response to Buck’s first 
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion.2  (Docs. 49, 54.)  Nothing in her latest filing alters the 
 
1 Buck’s second § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion was filed August 18, 2023.  (Doc. 53.) 
 
2 Buck’s aunt recently submitted a letter to the Court; however, the contents 
of the letter have not been verified.  (Doc. 57.)  See United States v. Granda, 852 F. 
App’x 442, 446 (11th Cir. 2021) (“What’s more, it was Granda’s burden to show that 
his circumstances warranted a reduction.”).  Even so, although the aunt’s letter 
describes various hardships, it does not establish she is “incapacitated,” as required 
by § 1B1.13, application note 1(C)(i).  And even if Buck were to demonstrate an 
“extraordinary and compelling” reason, the § 3553(a) factors still do not support her 
early release.  See United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1347 (11th Cir. 2021); United 
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR     Document 59     Filed 09/27/23     Page 1 of 5

   
 
 2 
 
government’s position that she has failed to establish an “extraordinary and 
compelling reason” under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 or that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors do 
not support her early release.   
In fact, in her most recent filing, Buck states that she “was forced to sign a plea 
deal” and was not allowed to “see a copy of [her] PSR,” which she now contends 
contain “lies.”  (Doc. 55 at 1.) And although Buck characterizes her crimes as 
“victimless” (Doc. 55 at 1), this is not true.  Her crimes—which she committed while 
serving in the U.S. Army—victimized both the taxpayers and the legitimate business-
owners who needed government assistance to keep their small businesses afloat 
during the time of an international pandemic.3  (PSR ¶¶ 7-12.)  These statements 
show Buck failing to take full responsibility for her criminal conduct, which also 
supports the denial of her motion.  See, e.g., United States v. Albertie, No. 3:08-cr-360, 
2021 WL 1924187, at *4 (M.D. Fla. May 13, 2021) (denying motion under § 3553(a) 
factors because, in part, “[d]efendant fails to demonstrate any acceptance of 
responsibility for the offense”).   
 
Finally, Buck’s request for home confinement should also be denied.  (Doc. 55 
at 1.)  Under 18 U.S.C. § 3623(c)(2) and 34 U.S.C. § 60541, it is BOP’s responsibility 
to compute a prisoner’s sentence, including home confinement designation—not the 
 
States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237-38 (11th Cir. 2021).      
 
3 In its judgment, the Court ordered Buck to pay over $3.6 million in restitution 
to the U.S. Small Business Administration and the U.S. Department of Education.  
(Doc. 44 at 6; PSR ¶ 62.)  This hardly counts as victimless. 
 
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR     Document 59     Filed 09/27/23     Page 2 of 5

   
 
 3 
 
courts’.  See Gonzalez v. United States, 959 F.2d 211, 212 (11th Cir. 1992), abrogated 
on other grounds by Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467 (11th Cir. 2015); Clay v. 
Henderson, 524 F.2d 921, 924 (5th Cir. 1975) (“[T]he Board of Prisons, through the 
Attorney General, possesses the absolute authority, absent a showing of abuse of 
discretion, to designate the place of a prisoner’s confinement and to administer 
transfer matters.”); see also Washington v. Warden Canaan USP, 858 F. App’x 35, 36 
(3d Cir. 2021) (“[W]e agree with the District Court that whether to transfer an inmate 
to home confinement is a decision within the exclusive discretion of the BOP.”).  These 
statutes “do not authorize a federal court to order the BOP to release a prisoner . . . ”  
See United States v. Calderon, 801 F. App’x 730, 731-32 (11th Cir. 2020) (explaining 
that under § 60541(g)(1)(A) the Attorney General “may” release eligible elderly 
offenders, and district court was without jurisdiction to grant relief); United States v. 
Pribyl, No. 20-11848, 2022 WL 424874, at *2 (11th Cir. Feb. 11, 2022) (“But [the 
CARES Act] does not provide the judiciary any additional authority to grant home 
confinement to a prisoner.”).  
 
The Court thus does not have the ability to place Buck on home confinement—
that is left to BOP’s discretion.   See United States v. Pearson, No. 21-10750, 2021 WL 
4987940, at *1 n.1 (11th Cir. Oct. 27, 2021) (“[T]he district court lacked the authority 
to grant [defendant] relief under these provisions because they place home-
confinement decisions exclusively within the discretion of the Attorney General and 
the Bureau of Prisons.”).  BOP is in the best position to determine whether, and when, 
home confinement placement is reasonable. 
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR     Document 59     Filed 09/27/23     Page 3 of 5

   
 
 4 
 
 
For these reasons, the United States continues to request that defendant’s § 
3582(c)(1)(A) motion (Doc. 53) be denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JILL E. STEINBERG 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Justin G. Davids 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justin G. Davids 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Missouri Bar No. 57661 
 
 
 
 
 
 
justin.davids@usdoj.gov 
P.O. Box 8970 
Savannah, Georgia 31412 
(912) 652-4422
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR     Document 59     Filed 09/27/23     Page 4 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
On September 27, 2023, I filed this response through this Court’s ECF 
system and served all parties through the Notice of Electronic Filing.  In addition, 
my office mailed a paper copy to: 
Dara Buck, Reg. Reg. No. 10895-510 
 
FPC Alderson 
 
Federal Prison Camp 
 
Inmate Legal Mail 
 
Glen Ray Rd. Box A 
 
Alderson, West Virginia 24910 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JILL E. STEINBERG 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Justin G. Davids 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justin G. Davids 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Missouri Bar No. 57661 
 
 
 
 
 
 
justin.davids@usdoj.gov 
 
Post Office Box 8970 
Savannah, Georgia 31412 
(912) 652-4422 
 
Case 4:22-cr-00065-RSB-CLR     Document 59     Filed 09/27/23     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gasd.87047.59.0.pdf

Size

126,323 bytes

SHA-256

d32b12a3faa29e00478f163aa190d61b92b6faebea975ddddc7b91ce8ab1c657

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gasd.87047.59.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)