Opinion — United States v. Roy John Depack (District of New Jersey, Document 89, filed July 1, 2024)

Summary

An Opinion in United States v. Roy John Depack, Crim. No. 2:23-cr-00229 (WJM), Document 89, filed July 1, 2024, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. It addresses the pro se defendant's Motions to Amend Judgment, which ask the court to order the Bureau of Prisons to place the defendant in a halfway house, to deduct only $25 every three months from the defendant's account, and to clarify the record on a supervised release violation. The opinion states that courts in the Third Circuit have no authority to direct halfway house placement and that the defendant still owes restitution from earlier convictions. It states that the record on the supervised release violation is accurately reflected in an earlier judgment. The Opinion concludes that the Motions are DENIED.

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

Full text

  Case 2:23-cr-00229-WJM Document 89 Filed 07/01/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 806




                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                       FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                                      Crim. No. 2:23-cr-00229 (WJM)

       V.
                                                                  OPINION
ROY JOHN DEPACK, Jr.,

              Defendant


WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:

       Before the Court is pro se defendant Roy John Depack, Jr.'s, ^'Defendant")
Motions to Amend Judgment. See ECF Nos. 81-83, 85, 87-88. For the reasons set forth
below, Defendant's Motions are DENIED.


       I,     BACKGROUND

       On January 19, 2022, Defendant was charged by criminal Complaint with disaster
relief fraud. See ECF No. 1. On or about July 25, 2022, Defendant was charged by
Amended Criminal Complaint with three additional charges. See ECF No. 24. The
Government and Defendant reached a Rule ll(c)(l)(C) plea agreement on January 13,
2023. See ECF No. 44. Under the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to plead guilty to a
four-count Information: Count One with wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343;
Count Two with disaster fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1040(a)(2); Count Three with
wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and Count Cour with forging or fraudulently
endorsing Treasury checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510.
       On September 7, 2023, this Court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment
of 42 months on each of Counts One to Four to run concurrently with each other, as well
as three years of supervised release on each Count to run concurrently. See ECF No. 76.
As part of the Judgment, this Court recommended to the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") that
the Defendant be designated in a facility as near as possible to the Defendant's home
address. Id. Defendant was further ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $123,
489.00 within 30 days of sentencing. Id. The Judgment also noted that "unless the court
has expressly ordered otherwise, if this judgment imposes imprisonment, payment of
criminal monetary penalties is due during imprisonment." Id. Also on September 7, 2023,
this Court revoked Defendant s previously imposed term of supervised release in United
States v. Roy Depack, 18"cr-0133 (WJM), and sentenced the Defendant to a nine-month
term of imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentence in this Instant case, reflecting
a violation of his supervised release. On September 8, 2023, Defendant filed a pro se
  Case 2:23-cr-00229-WJM Document 89 Filed 07/01/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 807




notice of appeal challenging his sentence in the instant case. Based on Defendant's
waiver of appeal, on February 21, 2024, the Third Circuit summarily granted the
Government's motion and dismissed Defendant's notice of appeal. See United States v.
Roy John Depack, Jr., ECF No. 1, 3d Clr. No. 23-2760.
      Defendant's various motions filed in this instant case request that: (1) the Court
order the BOP to place Defendant in a halfway house; (2) the Court order the BOP only
deduct $25.00 every three months from his account; and (3) the Court issue an order
clarifying the record that he "only ha[s] one violation for getting a new charge" with
respect to his violation of supervised release. See ECF Nos. 81-83, 85, 87-88. The
Defendant also attached a response by the BOP to his Request for Administrative
Remedy, where Defendant requested placement in a Residential Re-Entry Center
("RRC"), in which the BOP cited the Defendant's "poor history of adhering to the rules
associated with [his] placement on Supervision" as a reason for its denial. ECF No. 82, at
Ex. A. Lastly, Defendant filed pro se motions requesting summary judgment on his
previously filed motions and requests this Court to waive his payments of fines while he
is in custody as well as order the BOP to halt restitution payments. The Government filed
its opposition to the Defendant's miscellaneous requests on May 24, 2024. ECF No. 86.

      II. DISCUSSION

         A. RRC Placement

      The Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-199, ("the Act") authorizes
BOP to place qualifying prisoners in RRCs for "a portion of the final months" of their
prison term to "afford [these] prisoner[s] a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and
prepare for" their reentry into the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(l). Section 3621 of
the Act exclusively authorizes the BOP to designate a federal inmate's place of
confinement and make other custody determinations:


       [a]ny order, recommendation, or request by a sentencing court that
       a convicted person serve a term of imprisonment in a community
       corrections facility shall have no binding effect on the authority of
      the Bureau under this section to determine or change the place of
      imprisonment of that person. Notwithstanding any other provision
      of law, a designation of a place of imprisonment under this
      subsection is not reviewable by any court.


18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Similarly^ Courts in this Circuit have held that a district court has no
authority to direct the BOP to place a defendant in a halfway house or RRC. See, e.g.,
United States v. Harper, No. 19-190-7, 2021 WL 5239970, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 9, 2021)
(collecting cases and holding "this Court has no authority to direct the Bureau of Prisons
to permit [the defendant] to serve any portion of his sentence at a community corrections
center or on home confinement."); Tetterton v. Warden, No, 23-1394-CPO, 2023 WL

                                              2
   Case 2:23-cr-00229-WJM Document 89 Filed 07/01/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 808




4045086, at *2 (D.NJ. June 16, 2023) (collecting cases regarding home confinement). As
a result, the Defendant's Motions with respect to placing the Defendant in a RRC or
halfway house is DENIED.'

            B. Reducing Restitution and Halting Fines


      Defendant requests that this Court order the BOP to only deduct $25 every three
months from his account, halt the fines entirely, or halt restitution payments while he is in
custody. As part of the Judgment, the restitution in this matter was $123,489.00 and was
made due immediately within 30 days of sentencing. Similarly, the Defendant still owes
hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution from his previous convictions. For
instance, the Defendant only paid $3,726.21 towards his $18,256.48 debt from his 2006
judgment in 04-cr-000599 (SRC). The Defendant only paid $553.10 towards his
$394,746.31 debt from his 2018 judgment in 18-cr-00133 (WJM). Lastly, as of May 24,
2024, the Defendant has only paid $25 towards this September 2023 judgment, in which
he owes $123,889.00. Considering the Defendant's multiple convictions in which he
continues to owe substantial restitution, the Court will DENY Defendant's request to
reduce restitution or halt his fine.


            C. Clarifying the Record

       Lastly, the Defendant s remaining request is for an order clarifying the record with
respect to his violation of supervised release. This Court revoked the Defendant's
previously imposed term of supervised release after finding the Defendant guilty of one
violation and subsequently sentenced him to a nine-month term of imprisonment to run
concurrently with the 42-month sentence in this instant case. This determination is
accurately reflected in the Judgment entered in ECF No. 115, 18-cr-0133(WJM) (Sept.
13, 2023). Therefore, the Court will DENY Defendant's request to clarify the record.

        IIL CONCLUSION

        For the reasons set forth above. Defendant's Motions to Amend Judgment are
DENIED. An appropriate Order shall follow.




                                                                 WILLIA^T'Ivi^RTINI, U.S.D.J.

Date: July^, 2024

' The Government correctly notes that should the Defendant choose to style his Motion as a habeas
petition, he should file his request for habeas relief in the district in which he is confined. Since he is in
custody at FCI Allenwood Low, he should file any habeas relief request in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.


File and source

File

89.pdf

Size

164,147 bytes

SHA-256

cd3d7bc8c5090601c0361efb42f62aa6bbf3cfa1127e64f983af1f526f79da9f

Our copy

89.pdf

Original

archive.org