USA v. Goodface

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AARON DEWAYNE GOODFACE HI,
Defendant.
3:15-CR-30052-RAL
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATION
Defendant Aaron Goodface III filed a Motion for Judicial Recommendation, Doc. 36,
asking this Court to recommend that he be placed at a residential reentry center (RRC). For the
reasons discussed, Goodface's motion is denied.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Goodface was convicted in 2003 for aggravated sexual contact for an attempted forcible
rape and received a 110-month sentence with three years of supervised release. Doc. 30 at 10. On
April 24, 2015, while on supervised release, Goodface went to the home of Hilda Small, his 75-
year-old aunt. Doc. 30 at 5; Doc. 32 at 1. When Small opened the door, Goodface told her that
he was intoxicated and forced himself inside. Doc. 30 at 5. Goodface then threw Small on her
bed, ripped her clothes off, removed her colostomy bag, and got on top of her. Doc. 30 at 5; Doc.
32 at 2. He began to threaten her and punch her repeatedly, then hit her multiple times with a
flashlight. Doc. 30 at 5; Doc. 32 at 2. Small did not recall that Goodface vaginally'penetrated her,
but she believed that he may have knocked her unconscious by squeezing her neck and punching
1
Case 3:15-cr-30052-RAL Document 37 Filed 02/22/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

her repeatedly. Doc. 30 at 5; Doc. 32 at 2. After the assault, Small remembered waking up and
seeing Goodface naked and passed out beside her in bed. Doc. 30 at 5; Doc. 32 at 2.
Small got dressed and went to a neighboring apartment for help. Doc. 30 at 5. The police
arrived, and Small was taken to the hospital for emergency care. Doc. 30 at 5-6. She underwent
a CT scan which revealed a brain hemorrhage, and she had several facial lacerations that required
multiple sutures. Doc. 23 at 2; Doc. 30 at 6. Small also underwent a sexual assault examination,
which revealed bmising around her labia and blood in her vaginal vault. Doc. 30 at 6. A perineum
swab revealed the presence of seminal fluid, although no semen was detected. Doc. 30 at 6; Doc.
32 at 3. Goodface was taken into custody and took a preliminary breath test (PBT), which
registered .115%. Doc. 30 at 5.
Goodface was indicted for assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious
bodily injury. Doc. 1 at 1. He entered a plea agreement to plead guilty to assault resulting in
serious bodily injury in exchange for dismissal for the charge of assault with a dangerous weapon.
Doc. 22 at 2.
The sentencing guidelines range for the offense was 51 to 63 months. Doc. 35 at 2. But
the Government filed a Motion for Upward Departure and Variance, Doc. 32, requesting the
statutory maximum of 10 years. Doc. 32 at 3. The Government argued the age and vulnerability
of the victim and the brutality of the physical assault alone justified an upward departure. Doc. 32
at 3.
This Court agreed and on October 5,2015, sentenced Goodface to 119 months, discounting
the statutory maximum sentence by one month to credit Goodface for time served in tribal custody.
Doc. 33 at 1. This Court gave the age of the victim, the evidence of a sexual assault, Goodface's
prior conviction, and the brutality of the physical assault as facts justifying an upward departure.
Case 3:15-cr-30052-RAL Document 37 Filed 02/22/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

Doc. 35 at 3. This Court was concerned that Goodface posed a danger to society. Doc. 35 at 3.
Over six years later, on January 18,2022, Goodface made a Motion for Judicial Recommendation,
requesting this Court recommend to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that he be placed in a RRC for
one year, with six months in a halfway house and six months of home confinement. Doc. 36 at 1.
II. Legal Standard
18 U.S.C. § 3621 governs the "Imprisonment of a convicted person." It states in part:
The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner's imprisonment. . . . The
Bureau may designate any available penal or correctional facility that meets minimum
standards of health and habitability established by the Bureau . . . that the Bureau
determines to be appropriate and suitable, considering— (1) the resources of the facility
contemplated; (2) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (3) the history and
characteristics of the prisoner; (4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence—
(A) concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be
warranted; or (B) recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate. .
18 U.S.C. § 362 l(b) (emphasis added).
III. Discussion
Goodface claims that 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) gives this Court the authority to recommend that
he be placed in an RRC. Doc. 36 at 2. He cites several courts that have recognized 18 U.S.C. §
3621 as giving a district court the authority to make a recommendation for a prisoner's placement
after a sentence has been imposed. Doc. 36 at 1-3; e^. United States v. Bartels, 2016 WL
6956796, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 29, 2016) (holding a "court can make a recommendation that an
incarcerated person serve part of their imprisonment in a community corrections facility" under
18 U.S.C. § 3621); United States v. Brattin, 2016 WL 4467897, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 23, 2016)
(same); United States v. Baker, 2013 WL 355867, at *1 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2013) (same).
Goodface also states that community placement will help him obtain employment and earn money
to provide for himself, be a better family member, and become a more productive member of
Case 3:15-cr-30052-RAL Document 37 Filed 02/22/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

society. Doc. 36 at 3-4. He notes that he has participated Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics
Anonymous, and a 500-hour residential dmg treatment program (RDAP) while in prison. Doc. 36
at 4.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3621, the BOP is to consider "any statement by the court that imposed
the sentence .. . recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate . . ." when
designating where a prisoner will be placed. In special condition 1, this Court in fact classified
Goodface as a "prerelease case" when setting forth the RRC condition for supervised released.
Doc. 34 at 4. This Court is not convinced that § 3621 gives it authority to make any different
recommendation about where a prisoner should be placed after the defendant has already been
sentenced. Although some district courts have held 18 U.S.C. § 3621 gives them the authority to
issue a post-sentencing judicial recommendation on where a prisoner should serve the end of a
sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3624 governs the "Release of a prisoner" and discusses factors that the
BOP should considering when determining where to place a prisoner at the end of a sentence. 18
U.S.C. § 3624 (c)(l) states:
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that a prisoner
serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of that temi (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. Such conditions
may include a community correctional facility.
18 U.S.C. § 3624 makes no reference to any judicial recommendations the sentencing court
may have made concerning where a prisoner should be placed at the end of a sentence. Even if
this Court has authority to make an additional recommendation, it declines to make such a
recommendation here. The BOP is in a much better position than this Court to decide where
Goodface should serve the remainder of his sentence because Goodface has been in BOP custody
and has not appeared before this Court for over six years.
Case 3:15-cr-30052-RAL Document 37 Filed 02/22/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

IV. Conclusion and Order
For the reasons discussed, it is hereby
ORDERED that Goodface's Motion for Judicial Recommendation, Doc. 36, is denied.
DATED this ^ day of February, 2022.
BY THE COURT:
ROBERTO A. LANGE
CHIEF JUDGE
Case 3:15-cr-30052-RAL Document 37 Filed 02/22/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>