concluding that 16 “[b]ecause the BOP regulations categorically exclude [RRC] placement of inmates with more 17 than ten percent of their sentences remaining, they necessarily fail to apply the mandatory factors 18 listed in § 3621(b) to those inmates.”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that 16 “[b]ecause the BOP regulations categorically exclude [RRC] placement of inmates with more 17 than ten percent of their sentences remaining, they necessarily fail to apply the mandatory factors 18 listed in § 3621(b) to those inmates.”
- holding that failure to consider the five statutory factors when considering 20 eligibility for placement in or transfer to an RRC violates § 3621(b)
- recognizing that § 3621(b) gives the BOP authority and discretion to allow inmate to serve all or part of sentence in community confinement
- affirming 21 district court's grant of habeas relief where petitioner brought habeas corpus petition to 22 compel BOP to immediately consider transferring him to an RRC pursuant to the factors set forth 23 in 18 U.S.C. § 3621 (b)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
RYMER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
While I understand joining the parade of courts to decide this issue, I would reverse for the reasons stated in Muniz v. Sabol, 517 F.3d 29, 31 (1st Cir.2008), and in Judge Raggi’s well-reasoned dissent in Levine v. Apker, 455 F.3d 71, 87 (2d Cir.2006).