United States v. Lawrence

17-3706-cr United States v. Lawrence UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 8th day of November, two thousand eighteen. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., PIERRE N. LEVAL, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. 17-3706-cr LLAMAR LAWRENCE, Defendant-Appellant, ROMARIO BURKE, RENAIR MARTIN, Defendants. _____________________________________ FOR APPELLEE: JESSICA K. FENDER (Daniel B. Tehrani, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, 1 NY, for Geoffrey S. Berman, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: WALTER MACK, ESQ., Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack, New York, NY Appeal from an October 28, 2017, order denying Llamar Lawrence’s motion to direct the United States Bureau of Prisons to transfer Lawrence to a prison facility in New York City (Rakoff, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this appeal is DISMISSED. Llamar Lawrence appeals a district court order denying his motion to be transferred to a federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) facility in New York City. He claims the district court erred by permitting the BOP to transfer him to a Pennsylvania facility despite its order directing the BOP to keep Lawrence in New York until final judgment was issued. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, but we include a short summary of the procedural background to explain our decision. For the reasons stated below, we dismiss Lawrence’s appeal. I. Procedural Background On March 31, 2017, Lawrence pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). That offense provides for a mandatory minimum term of sixty months’ imprisonment. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Lawrence had been held in state custody since January 22, 2014, for the same conduct, but no state conviction had been obtained. At his July 19, 2017, sentencing hearing in this case, Lawrence argued for a downward adjustment to his 60-month mandatory minimum sentence to account for the time he spent in state custody. The district court reserved its decision on the matter, explaining that it was unsure the court could grant such relief, and that if the BOP provided the downward adjustment it would moot the issue. Pending final judgment, ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals