United States v. Ian Chase

2020 DNH 088

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: May 22, 2020
• Docket: 16-cr-00111-LM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. Criminal No. 16-cr-00111-LM Opinion No. 2020 DNH 088 Ian Chase

O R D E R

Defendant, Ian Chase, is currently serving a 60-month

sentence on one count of unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)(C) and one count of

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking

crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). He requests

that the court recommend to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) that

he be permitted to serve the last 12 months of his sentence in a

residential reentry center. Doc. no. 44. The government filed

no objection.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621, BOP “has plenary control,

subject to statutory constraints, over the place of the

prisoner’s imprisonment.” Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319,

331 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). To the extent

practicable, BOP must ensure that a prisoner spend a portion of his or her final months of imprisonment—not to exceed 12

months—“under conditions that will afford that prisoner a

reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the reentry

of that prisoner into the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1).

These conditions are present at a “community corrections

facility,” also known as a halfway house or residential reentry

center.

A sentencing court may recommend that a prisoner serve up

to 12 months of his or her sentence in a residential reentry

center. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4); Tapia, 564 U.S. at 331;

United States v. Stiles, 1:11-cr-00185-JAW, 2018 WL 4219192, at

*3 (D. Me. Sept. 5, 2018). But that recommendation has no

binding effect on BOP; BOP retains ultimate decision-making

authority over the prisoner’s placement. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b);

Tapia, 564 U.S. at 331.

BACKGROUND

On July 21, 2016, defendant was arrested on the

methamphetamine manufacturing charge. He was released that same

day on conditions and with pretrial supervision. Doc. no. 5.

In November 2016, defendant was charged by superseding

information with the same methamphetamine manufacturing charge

(count one) and with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a

2 drug trafficking crime (count two). Shortly thereafter, in

December, defendant waived indictment and pleaded guilty to both

charges. See doc. no. 14 (plea agreement). The plea agreement

explains that federal agents received information that defendant

was manufacturing methamphetamine in a shack near his residence.

When agents arrived at defendant’s property to investigate, they

observed evidence that defendant was manufacturing

methamphetamine. They also found a pistol on defendant’s person

and several additional firearms in his home and vehicle.

On March 16, 2018, the court sentenced defendant to time

served on count one and 60 months on count two to be served

consecutively. See doc. no. 40. The court also imposed a

three-year term of supervised release. The court ordered

defendant to self-surrender for his sentence of imprisonment the

following month.

Defendant has served the majority of his sentence in the

camp at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) Berlin,

which is the facility the court recommended BOP place him so he

could be near his family. While at FCI Berlin, defendant has

worked several jobs—as a welder, utility worker, and snow-plow

driver—achieving essentially full-time work while incarcerated.

He represents that he has not had any disciplinary infractions

3 during his incarceration. He also represents that he completed

the available drug education course and regularly attends

Narcotics Anonymous (“NA”) meetings.

Defendant filed this motion because his unit manager told

him that he might qualify for more than the typical 4-6 months

at a residential reentry center if he received a judicial

recommendation for the full 12 months. His projected release

date is July 6, 2022.

DISCUSSION

Sentencing courts evaluating requests such as defendant’s

have considered a variety of factors, including defendant’s

post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts, prison disciplinary

record, recommendations from BOP personnel, the nature of the

crime for which defendant is incarcerated, and defendant’s

criminal history (or lack thereof). See, e.g., Stiles, 2018 WL

4219192, at *3-6 (collecting cases granting and denying similar

requests and analyzing facts of instant case). Considering

these factors, the court finds that defendant is a strong

candidate for a 12-month residential reentry center placement.

Defendant has a moderate criminal history, with offenses

stretching through his entire adult life thus far. Those

4 offenses include several crimes against property, possession of

marijuana, and driving while intoxicated. See doc. no. 19 at 7-

9. Defendant’s pattern of criminal behavior culminated in the

conduct underlying the offenses for which he is currently

incarcerated: manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing a

firearm in furtherance of that crime. These crimes may have

been motivated in part by his then-current use of cocaine and/or

methamphetamine. Notably, however, defendant’s criminal history

involves no instances of violent behavior. Although defendant

was charged with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a

drug crime, he did not use the firearm in a threatening or

violent manner.

Since he was first arrested on the methamphetamine charge,

defendant has turned a corner towards sobriety and law-abiding

behavior. Defendant was released on bail from July 2016 until

April 2018 when he self-surrendered. During that time,

defendant engaged in regular counseling, attended NA meetings,

and tested negative on all drug screenings. Doc. no. 19 at 13.

Defendant has continued those positive habits while

incarcerated by taking efforts to rehabilitate himself. He

completed a drug education course, regularly attends NA

meetings, works consistently, and has avoided any disciplinary

5 infractions. 1 Defendant’s recent behavior demonstrates that he

may be able to thrive in the less-restrictive environment of a

residential reentry center. His return to the community will

allow him to reunite with his family and begin financially

supporting them. Assuming that defendant continues his

rehabilitation efforts during the rest of his sentence and after

he is released, the court finds that defendant is deserving of

this court’s recommendation that, to the extent possible, BOP

place him in a residential reentry center for the maximum period

allowable by law (12 months).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants defendant’s

motion for a recommendation to BOP that it place him in a

residential reentry center for the final 12 months of his

sentence (doc. no. 44).

1 Although defendant has not submitted any proof of his disciplinary record, work history, or educational efforts, the court has no reason to disbelieve his representations. Cf. United States v. Ford, No. 1:12-CR-000163-JAW-4, 2018 WL 3117634, at *3 (D. Me. June 25, 2018) (refusing to accept defendant’s representations about her behavior in prison because she had lied during her trial and re-trial testimony).

6 SO ORDERED.

__________________________ Landya McCafferty United States District Judge

May 22, 2020

cc: Counsel of Record U.S. Probation