to the District Court’s position. On May 7, 2016, the District Court held a conference call with counsel for the government, Ragnoli’s counsel, and a probation officer. Ragnoli was not present on the call, and no one objected to his absence. Later that day, the District Court issued a letter that read: Joseph Ragnoli’s sentence by this Court on April 25, 2013, to a 60-month term of confinement for violation of his supervised release is to run consecutive with his state term of imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3, comment. Nn. 3, 4. App. 58. Once Ragnoli learned of the District Court’s lettei’, he filed an appeal, which is presently before us. II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Ragnoli’s sentencing pursuant to 18 Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Pineyro, 112 F.3d 43, 45 (2d
holding that the portion of a district courts order that included a specific place of imprisonment was only a nonbinding recommendation to the bop and therefore not appealable holding that orders remanding an action to a federal agency are generally not considered final appealable orders holding that a district courts recommendation that the bop not credit the defendant for his time in state custody was not appealable because the district courts recommendation was not binding on the bop recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders of removal holding that nonbinding recommendations to the bop are not reviewable orders