Hill v. USA

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1) 1 "Motion for Judicial Recommendation" construed in part as a petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 2) Court CERTIFIES that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. 3) Action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. 4) Judgment shall be entered w this Memo Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 3/30/2018.(SCD)cc: Pro Se Petitioner via US Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
LARRY D. HILL, JR.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
***

***

Civil No. 5: 18-191-JMH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

***

***

Federal inmate Larry D. Hill, Jr. has filed a pro se
for Judicial Recommendation.” [R. 1]

“Motion

For administrative purposes,

the Clerk of the Court has docketed Hill’s motion as a habeas
corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, presumably because
through it Hill seeks earlier release from custody to a halfway
house.

The construed petition is before the Court for initial

review. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons,
419 F. App’x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011).
In April 2013, Hill was charged by an information filed in
Rocky Mount, North Carolina with conspiring with others to file
false claims for federal income tax refunds.

In addition, he

committed his crimes while on supervised release from a prior
federal conviction for defrauding insurance companies.

Hill pled

guilty to the newly-charged offenses.
Prior to sentencing, Hill requested leniency because he was
diagnosed at age 33 with cardiomyopathy (a heart condition), and

he

suffers

from

hyperlipidemia.

hypertension,

diabetes,

sleep

apnea,

and

Hill submitted extensive documentation of his

medical conditions in support of that request.
In February 2014, the trial court sentenced Hill to 100 months
imprisonment

and

ordered

restitution.

The

trial

recommendation

that

the

nearly
court’s

Bureau

five

million

judgment

of

Prisons

dollars

in

included

a

general

conduct

a

medical

screening of Hill upon entry and that he continue to receive
appropriate medical care during his incarceration.

It further

included a special recommendation that Hill be confined at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina, a
complex that has more extensive medical care facilities than most
federal penal institutions.

Since that time, Hill has filed over

two dozen motions seeking relief from his convictions and sentences
on various grounds, all without success.

United States v. Hill,

No. 4: 13-CR-28-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. 2013).
Hill

is

now

confined

at

the

Federal

Medical

Center

in

Lexington, Kentucky, with a projected release date in February
2021.

See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. Through his motion,

Hill asks this Court to issue a recommendation to the BOP that he
be allowed to serve the last 12 months of his sentence in a halfway
house or in home confinement, based upon his current medical
condition and his efforts at rehabilitation.

2 

[R. 1 at 1-2]

The Court must deny Hill’s request because this Court has no
authority to make such a recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 merely because he is confined within this district.

Nor

may he file a freestanding motion in this Court requesting such
relief. Program Statement 5100.08, upon which Hill relies, permits
the court that imposed the criminal sentence to make such a
sentence at the time of sentencing.

But this Court did not impose

his sentence, and the Eastern District of North Carolina made no
such recommendation even though it was fully apprised of his
medical conditions and accounted for them in its 2014 judgment.
Finally, at this time Hill’s projected release date is nearly 36
months in the future, and the BOP does not generally make even
preliminary determinations regarding the length of RRC placements
until 15-17 months before an inmate’s projected release date.
Because Hill’s request is not cognizable in a § 2241 petition and
does not invoke any authority exercisable by this Court, his motion
will be denied and this proceeding closed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Larry

Hill’s

“Motion

for

Judicial

Recommendation.”

[R. 1], construed in part as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is DENIED.
2.

For the reasons stated herein, the Court CERTIFIES that

any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

3 

3.

This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s

docket.
4.

Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this

Memorandum Opinion and Order.
This the 30th day of March, 2018.

4