Armillas-Llaurado v. Warden, FCI Sandstone

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Lorenzo Armillas-Llaurado,
Petitioner,
v.
Warden, FCI Sandstone,
Respondent.
Case No. 25-cv-3771 (JMB/DJF)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Lorenzo Armillas-Llaurado’s Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus Under § 2241 (“Petition”) (ECF No. 1). 	Mr. Armillas-Llaurado is a
prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institute-Sandstone (“FCI-Sandstone”). 	(Id.) 	His Petition
alleges that the Bureau of Prisons has unlawfully denied him eligibility for early release under the
First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”). (Id.) The FSA allows many federal prisoners to earn and apply
time credits towards their sentence should they participate in evidence-based recidivism reduction
programming or productive activities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d). Prisoners subject to a final order
of removal, however, are not eligible to apply FSA time credits towards their sentence. 	See 18
U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i).
Mr. Armillas-Llaurado’s Petition alleges he is not subject to a final order of removal and
is only subject to an immigration detainer. 	(ECF No. 1 at 2.) 	He argues that an immigration
detainer is not a permissible basis to deny him FSA eligibility. (Id. at 1.) In its initial response to
the Petition, the Government acknowledged that Mr. Armillas-Llaurado was not yet subject to a
final order of removal when he filed his Petition and argued that he nevertheless was ineligible for
FSA time credits. (ECF No. 8 at 1.) However, the Government informed the Court on October
CASE 0:25-cv-03771-JMB-DJF Doc. 16 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 3

2
20, 2025, that Mr. Armillas-Llaurado has now become subject to a final order of removal. The
Government asserts that the Petition has become moot as a result. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.)
The Court afforded Mr. Armillas-Llaurado an opportunity to respond to the Government’s
argument by November 4, 2025. (ECF No. 14.) The Court received his response on November 12,
2025. (ECF No. 15.) That response addressed only the Government’s initial arguments and did
not grapple with the impact of the final order of removal on the viability of his Petition, which
superseded the Government’s initial arguments.1
Mr. Armillas-Llaurado’s Petition was founded on the lack of a final order of removal.
Whatever the strength of Mr. Armillas-Llaurado’s claims at the time he filed his Petition, the
Government has offered evidence that he is now subject to a final order of removal. (See ECF No.
12-1.) Mr. Armillas-Llaurado was offered an opportunity to rebut that evidence and has not done
so. 	As the Petition expressly acknowledges, Section 3632(d)(4)(E)(i) unambiguously excludes
individuals subject to a final order of removal from FSA time credit eligibility. (See ECF No. 1 at
3, citing Section 3632(d)(4)(E)(i).)
In light of the entry of the final order of removal, Mr. Armillas-Llaurado is now ineligible
to apply FCA time credits to his sentence.2 His Petition should therefore be denied.
1 Mr. Armillas-Llaurado’s reply is dated October 31, 2025, which was more than three
weeks after his final order of removal was served on him. (See ECF No. 12-1 at 1, final order of
removal.) 	Mr. Armillas-Llaurado therefore should have known at the time that he prepared his
reply that the premise of his Petition no longer applied.
2 The Court does not conclude that Mr. Armillas-Llaurado’s Petition is “moot” because it
cannot determine from this record that Mr. Armillas-Llaurado no longer seeks to apply FSA time
credits to his sentence. Rather, the Court concludes that, in light of the order of removal, there is
no legal basis to grant the requested relief.
CASE 0:25-cv-03771-JMB-DJF Doc. 16 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 3

3
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. 	Petitioner Lorenzo Armillas-Llaurado’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under § 2241 (ECF No. 1) be DENIED; and
2. 	This matter be DISMISSED.
Dated: November 20, 2025 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District
Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate
judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy” of the
Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being
served a copy of the objections. 	See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). 	All objections and responses must
comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cv-03771-JMB-DJF Doc. 16 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 3