Order Denying Motion — United States v. Bush (Dkt. 56, E.D. Tenn.)

Summary

An order of U.S. District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer in United States v. Porsha Tims Bush, No. 3:21-CR-74-KAC-JEM-1, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, filed November 20, 2023 as Document 56. It denies the defendant's pro se Motion for Judicial Recommendation Concerning Length of Halfway House Placement (Doc. 55), filed with letters of support about her post-conviction work. The motion asked the court to recommend to the Bureau of Prisons 14-18 months of halfway house placement. Citing 18 U.S.C. § 3621, under which the Bureau of Prisons designates where a prisoner serves the sentence, the court declines to make the recommendation.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
                                     AT KNOXVILLE

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       )
                                                 )
                Plaintiff,                       )
                                                 )
 v.                                              )       No.:    3:21-CR-74-KAC-JEM-1
                                                 )
 PORSHA TIMS BUSH,                               )
                                                 )
                Defendant.                       )

                                 ORDER DENYING MOTION

        This case is before the Court on Defendant Porsha Tims Bush’s pro se “Motion for Judicial

 Recommendation Concerning Length of Halfway House Placement” [Doc. 55] accompanied by

 letters of support and other documents attesting to Defendant’s post-conviction work to better

 herself [Doc. 55-1]. Defendant asks the Court to recommend to the Bureau of Prison (“BOP”) that

 she “be granted the maximum remaining placement time” in a Halfway House [Id. at 2].

 Specifically, she seeks a recommendation of “14-18 months of Halfway House” placement [Id.].

        18 U.S.C. § 3621 charges the BOP with “designating the place of the prisoner’s

 imprisonment.” BOP makes this designation after carefully considering (1) “the resources of the

 facility contemplated,” (2) “the nature an circumstances of the offense,” (3) “the history and

 characteristics of the prisoner,” (4) “any statement by the court that imposed the sentence—(A)

 concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be warranted;

 or (B) recommending a type of penal or correction facility as appropriate,” and (5) “any pertinent

 policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 944(a)(2) of title 28.”

 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). The law further directs that the Director of the BOP “shall, to the extent

 practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final




Case 3:21-cr-00074-KAC-JEM Document 56 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 352

 months of that term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will afford that prisoner a

 reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the reentry of that prisoner into the community.”

 Id. at § 3624(c)(1). “Such conditions may include a community correctional facility,” id., often

 referred     to    as     a    “residential     reentry      center”      or   “halfway       house.”

 See   Fed.    Bureau     of   Prisons,    About       Our   Facilities:   Reentry   Centers    Page,

 https://www.bop.gov/about/facilities/residential_reentry_management_centers.jsp (last visited

 Nov. 17, 2023).

        Congress squarely vested BOP, not the Court, with authority regarding an inmate’s

 designation within the BOP system. See Lovett v. Hogsten, No. 09-5605, 2009 WL 5851205, at *1

 (6th Cir. Dec. 29, 2009) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)). BOP developed regulations to assist it in

 performing its statutory duty. See id. at *1-2. Moreover, BOP has access to critical information

 regarding “the resources of the facility contemplated” and “the history and characteristics of the

 prisoner” during incarceration that the Court does not have. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Therefore,

 BOP—not the Court—is in the best position to assess the “conditions that will afford” Defendant

 “a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the reentry . . . into the community.”

 See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1). As such, the Court is unable to make an informed and reasoned

 recommendation regarding halfway house designation. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

 Defendant’s “Motion for Judicial Recommendation Concerning Length of Halfway House

 Placement” [Doc. 55].

        IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                               ________________________
                                               KATHERINE A. CRYTZER
                                               United States District Judge



                                                   2


Case 3:21-cr-00074-KAC-JEM Document 56 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 353

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.tned.100115.56.0.pdf

Size

186,871 bytes

SHA-256

b7938b6509ab39d2892547f35ef2ca2cc4f7bbeceb64aa8d8d9dbc6ce1131de3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.tned.100115.56.0.pdf

Original

archive.org