We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BANKING ON IT

Ron Jackson was sentenced to 20 year for a crack cocaine offense back in 2003. After the First Step Act passed, he received a reduction in sentence to time served under the retroactive Fair Sentencing Act. Ron had served 177 months at the time.

Freedom after 15 years in prison wasn’t enough for Ron. His revised Guidelines under the Fair Sentencing Act were 120 months, and he wanted his revised sentence to be reduced to that level. He intended to “bank” the 57 months he had served in excess of 120 months against a future supervised release violation.

The district court refused to make a deposit into Ron’s “time served” bank account, holding that the sentencing factors of 18 USC § 3553(a) only supported a reduction to time served. “In particular,” the court said, “the need to protect the public and the need for deterrence dictate that a defendant not be allowed to “bank time,” which could allow him to commit further crimes without the fear of imprisonment.”

Ron appealed.

Last week, the 4th Circuit upheld the district court. Ron argued that the new sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court misapplied § 3553(a)’s protection-of-the-public and deterrence factors in considering banked time and substantively unreasonable because banked time is an improper sentencing factor. The Court, however, found that a district court is not forbidden from considering the impact of banked time when deciding whether to reduce a “sentence to time served or some lesser term.” Furthermore, “a defendant is not entitled to a sentence that would result in banked time,” the 4th said. “Even when a defendant’s conviction itself is vacated, there are situations where the defendant will not receive credit for the time during which he was incorrectly incarcerated.”

The appeals court was concerned that letting Ron “bank” his time would only encourage him to later “spend” the banked time by committing a further crime for which he had already paid. The Court of Appeals said, “the availability of banked time to offset a revocation sentence” is very relevant to the factor of deterring future offenses and protecting the public. “It is reasonable,” the Circuit said, “for a district court to think that the prospect of returning to prison under a revocation sentence would provide a measure of deterrence against future crimes of the defendant and thereby provide a measure of protection to the public.”

United States v. Jackson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (4th Cir. Mar. 10, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root