Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Daniel Rodriguez v. Paul Copenhaver
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 25, 2016No. 14-16399Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTashima, Circuit Judge
In designating the place of a federal prisoner’s confinement, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is required to consider “any statement by the court that imposed the sentence[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4). This requirement applies to retroactive, or nunc pro tunc, designations. Although one possible construction of the term “the court that imposed the sentence” is that it refers to the court as a whole, here the Southern District of Florida, I fully agree with the majority’s interpretation that “[t]his is a direction to the Bureau of Prisons to consider statements made by the sentencing judge to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Mayberry v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1971