United States of America v. Keynan Green

ALD-114 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 09-4569
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KEYNAN GREEN,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 2-05-cr-00544)
District Judge: Honorable Stewart Dalzell
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 4, 2010
Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 22, 2010 )
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Keynan Green, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion to reduce his
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which the District Court granted on
September 25, 2008. On September 19, 2009, Green filed a motion to request that the

-- 1 of 3 --

To the extent that Green intended to appeal from the order issued on September 25,1
2008, his notice of appeal is not timely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b).
2
District Court issue a court order for the government to remove separation restrictions.
According to Green, separation restrictions were in place that deprived him and his co-
defendants from being classified to a federal institution that was closer to home. On
September 29, 2009, the District Court denied Green’s request. On November 30, 2009,
Green filed the instant notice of appeal.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the District Court’s
September 29, 2009 order for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Smith, 445 F.3d1
713, 716 (3d Cir. 2006). We may summarily affirm if this appeal presents no substantial
question. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.
In its order denying relief, the District Court noted that “the question of whether,
and to what extent, separation restrictions should exist [is] within the province of the
Government and the Bureau of Prisons.” We agree. Generally, prisoners do not have
inherent liberty interests in particular modes, places, or features of confinement, including
housing placements. See Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466-68 (1983), abrogated by
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483 (1995); see also Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88
n.9 (1976) (“Congress has given federal prison officials full discretion to control
[prisoner classification and corresponding housing assignments], and petitioner has no
legitimate statutory or constitutional entitlement sufficient to invoke due process”);

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976) (no due process protections required upon
discretionary transfer of state inmates between prisons). Green has not shown how he is
otherwise entitled to relief.
Accordingly, as no substantial question is presented by this appeal, we will
summarily affirm.

-- 3 of 3 --