had sentenced Ragnoli, only the BOP had the authority to credit Ragnoli for his time in state custody by retroactively designating his state institution for service of his federal sentence. See Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 478 (3d Cir.1990); 18 U.S.C § 3621(b) (granting the BOP authority to “designate the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment.”). Since the District Court had no authority to modify its earlier sentencing order, and the BOP had independent authority to decide whether to credit Ragnoli for his time in state custody, the District Court’s tetter was only a non-binding recommendation to the BOP, not an appealable order. This reasoning is in accord with our own case law, and the law of multiple other circuits. United States v. Serafini, 233 F.3d 758, 778 (3d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 852, 856
holding that nonbinding recommendations to the bop are not reviewable 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 holding that district courts nonbinding recommendations to the bop are not appealable holding that a portion of a district courts summary judgment order that determines which facts a party may or may not be able to prove at trial is not appealable 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