haʊˈɛvɚ, ðɪ ɐpˈɛlət kˈoːɹt ɹˈɛkəɡnˌaɪzd ðæt fˈɛdɚɹəl stˈætʃuːts dʒˈɛnɚɹəli ɐlˈaʊ ˈoʊnli ðɪ ɐtˈɜːni dʒˈɛnɚɹəl, θɹuː ðə bjˈʊɹɹoʊ ʌv pɹˈɪzənz bˌiːˌoʊpˈiː tə dɪtˈɜːmɪn ðə kəndˈɪʃənz ʌv kənfˈaɪnmənt ɪmpˈoʊzd ˌɔn fˈɛdɚɹəl pɹˈɪzənɚz, bˌʌt ðæt ˈʌðɚ stˈætʃuːts, ɐlˈaʊ dˈɪstɹɪkt kˈoːɹts tə sˈɛt spˈɛʃəl kəndˈɪʃənz ʌv kənfˈaɪnmənt ˌɔn dᵻfˈɛndənts kənvˈɪktᵻd ʌv ɹˌækɪtˈɪɹɪŋ.
However, the appellate court recognized that federal statutes generally allow only the attorney general, through the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to determine the conditions of confinement imposed on federal prisoners, but that other statutes, allow district courts to set special conditions of confinement on defendants convicted of racketeering.