Soto v. United States of America
Filing
15
Opinion and Order. For all of these reasons, the Court finds that Soto is not entitled to the relief she requests, and the Court ORDERS that Isabel Soto's petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Reed C. O'Connor on 6/29/2018) (trt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
ISABEL SOTO,
Petitioner,
v.
JODY UPTON, Warden,
FMC-Carswell,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-00154-O
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Petitioner Isabel Soto’s (“Soto”) amended petition for a writ of habeas
corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 6); and Warden Jody R. Upton’s Response (ECF
No. 13) and Appendix (ECF No. 14). After considering the § 2241 petition, related briefing, and
applicable law, the Court finds that the § 2241 petition should be and is hereby DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Soto, a federal prisoner confined at FMC-Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas, was
convicted of distribution and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and
abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and sentenced
to 105 months’ imprisonment. J., No. 5:15-cr-078-C(1), ECF No. 380; Statement of Reasons 1–4,
No. 5:15-cr-078-C(1), ECF No. 381.1 Soto did not file a direct appeal. On January 10, 2017, Soto
filed a document entitled “Motion to Change Method by Which Balance of Sentence is Served.” No.
5:15-cr-078-C(1), ECF No. 393. The presiding judge construed that motion as a petition seeking
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, opened a new civil case number 5:17-cv-008-C, and ordered Soto to
1
The Court takes judicial notice of the records of the court in United States v. Soto, No. 5:15-cr-078C(1). See FED. R. EVID. 201(b)(2) and (c)(1).
complete and file a form petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241. Jan. 13, 2017 Order, No.
5:17-cv-008-C, ECF No. 4. Soto filed a completed § 2241 petition as an amended § 2241 petition
with the three-page “Motion to Change Method by Which Balance of Sentence is Served” as an
attachment. Am. Pet. 1–12, No. 5:17-cv-008-C, ECF No. 6. The case was then transferred to this
division and given case number 4:17-cv-154-O, such that the prior docket entries in case 5:17-cv008-C were incorporated into the docket of this case. Feb. 17, 2017 Order Transfer, ECF No. 8;
Docket Text Entries, ECF No. 8–9.
II.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
In Soto’s amended § 2241 petition, she contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has
failed to implement a Family Unity Demonstration Project (the “Project”) and apply it specifically
to her. Am. Pet. 5, ECF No. 6. She argues that the BOP was required to create the Project, which
involved developing halfway house-like facilities that would be capable of housing inmates and their
children and providing educational and rehabilitative programs. Id. at 10–11 (citing 42 U.S.C. §§
13882 and 13903). Soto argues that since the BOP has failed to implement this program, this Court
“is empowered to fashion an alternative remedy to effectuate the goal that Congress sought to
achieve.” Id. at 11. She in turn seeks to serve the majority, if not the remainder, of her sentence “at
home under conditions,” or under “home confinement,” or “in a halfway house-like facility.” Id. at
7, 10, 12.
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
Claim for Relief Under the Family Unity Demonstration Project
Soto’s claims that the Project, 42 U.S.C. § 13882, et seq., enacted as part of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, requires the BOP to provide halfway house-like
2
facilities for qualifying parent-inmates. Am. Pet. 5, 11, ECF No. 6. Congress, however, authorized
funds for the Project only through the year 2000. 42 U.S.C. § 13883(a)(1)–(5) (2013). Furthermore,
despite the statutory authorization, Congress never actually appropriated funds for this program. See
United States v. Meza-Pena, No. 2:12-cr-021-KJM-1, 2013 WL 2991059, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 14,
2013) (citing JAMES A. SWARTZ ET AL., DRUGS, WOMEN, AND JUSTICE, 36 (2006)). Because
Congress never funded the Project, the BOP was never authorized to implement the Project. Thus,
the statutory provisions setting forth the terms of the Project give Soto no basis for a sentence
reduction. See United States v. Wright, No. 2:06-cr-834 TS, 2008 WL 4219076, at *1 (D. Utah Sep.
15, 2008) (“[N]either § 13882 nor any other section of the Family Unity Demonstration Project
authorizes the sentencing court to modify a federal sentence after it has been imposed.”).
Furthermore, Respondent argues that even if the BOP had implemented the Project, it would
not have been applicable to Soto’s sentence. Respt’s Resp. 5, ECF No. 13. The Project’s authorizing
legislation provided that only inmates sentenced to no more than seven years of imprisonment could
be eligible. 42 U.S.C. § 13882 (definition of “eligible offender”) (2013). Soto admits that her 105month sentence was longer than seven years. Am. Pet. 11, ECF No. 11; J. 2, No.5:15-cr-078-C(1),
ECF No. 380. Thus, even if the BOP had implemented the Project, Soto is statutorily excluded from
participating in it.
In sum, because Congress never funded the Project, and because Soto does not meet the
statutory eligibility requirements for it in any case, the Court DENIES her claim for relief under §
2241.
3
B.
Alternative Claim for Relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553
Petitioner also argues that since the BOP failed to effectuate the Project, this Court is
“empowered to fashion an alternative remedy to effectuate the goal that Congress sought to achieve.”
Am. Pet. 11, ECF No. 6. Petitioner cities to 18 U.S.C. § 3553 as a basis for such relief, but as another
court reviewing a Defendant’s motion using the exact same “empower-to-fashion-an-alternativeremedy” language explained: “[a]though the Defendant cites 18 U.S.C. § 3553 as providing the
authority for this modification, that statute does not apply once a sentence has been imposed. United
States v. Goforth, Crim. No. 3:07-cr-247, 2010 WL 3167359, *1 (W.D. N.C. Aug. 9, 2010) (citation
omitted); see also Wright, 2008 WL 4219076, at *1 (“The Court finds § 3553 does not authorize
modification of a sentence once it is imposed.”). This Court may modify a term of imprisonment
after it has been imposed under very limited circumstances set forth under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
Those circumstances are: (1) when the Director of the BOP asks the Court to reduce a term of
imprisonment because “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction,” or because
the defendant is seventy years of age, has served at least 30 years in prison, and does not pose a
danger; (2) when permitted by statute or by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35; and (3) when
a sentencing range is subsequently lowered by an amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)–(2) (2015). Soto’s § 2241 petition has not shown that any of these avenues for
post-judgment sentence modification are available to her.2 Soto has therefore not shown that this
Court is authorized to “fashion an alternative remedy” by granting her a modification of her sentence.
2
The criminal docket shows that the Court denied two motions for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 filed
by Soto. Jan. 11, 2017 Orders, No. 5:15-cr-078-C(1), ECF Nos. 395, 396. The Court also denied Soto’s
motion under § 2255, assigned civil docket number 5:17-cv-007-C. Aug. 11, 2017 Order and J., No. 5:17-cv007-C, ECF Nos. 6, 7.
4
IV.
CONCLUSION
For all of these reasons, the Court finds that Soto is not entitled to the relief she requests, and
the Court ORDERS that Isabel Soto’s petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED.3
SO ORDERED on this 29th day of June 2018.
_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
The Respondent also argued alternatively that Soto’s claims in this case must be dismissed as they
are not cognizable under § 2241, and because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Resp’t Resp.
2–4, ECF No.13. As the Court has determined that Soto’s claims should be denied on the merits, it does not
reach these alternative grounds for dismissal.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?