United States v. Michael Williams

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that \the Bureau of Prisons has great discretion in their decision to transfer a prisoner to another prison\
• stating that “sentencing court has no authority to order that a convicted defendant be confined in a particular facility” because that decision is “within the sole discretion of the Bureau of Prisons”
• upholding a departure based on inmate’s acceptance into a 1,000 hour prison rehabilitation program, because “if [the defendant] is cured of his addiction, [the departure] may ultimately serve to protect the public from future criminal acts”
• “A sentencing court has no authority to order that a convicted defendant be confined in a particular facility, much less placed in a particular treatment program; those decisions are within the sole discretion of the [BOP].”
• “A sentencing court has no authority to order that a convicted defendant be confined in a particular 4 facility, much less placed in a particular treatment program; those decisions are within the sole discretion of the Bureau of Prisons.”
• departure to facilitate defendant's admission to drug treat- ment program

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).