All posts by lisa-legalinfo

Let’s ‘Beat’ Inmate Abuse – Update for April 23, 2026

Leave a comment

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

LIFE DOES NOT IMITATE ART

Sen Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) last week introduced a bill to increase the criminal penalties for inmates assaulting BOP correctional officers.

The Safer Prisons Act of 2026, S. 4305, cosponsored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), would double the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense.

“Federal prisons have become increasingly unsafe for the brave men and women who serve as federal corrections officers,” Sen. Blackburn said. “Incidents of inmates assaulting BOP officers have been on the rise and often result in PTSD for the affected officers as they continue to do their jobs.”

Coincidentally, last week, a BOP employee from FCI Talladega was arrested for obstructing governmental operations and resisting arrest after he allegedly ran police and fire barricades, failed to abide by barricades and road closures on April 13. He reportedly drove through the scene while emergency crews were fighting a fire and then resisted attempts to take him into custody.

Obviously, the employee is innocent until proven guilty (a concept alien to the BOP disciplinary system), but this suggests that the assailants may not be just inmates.

S.4305, Safer Prisons Act of 2026

Ripon Advance, Blackburn proposes bill to double down on inmates who assault federal prison officers (April 17, 2026)

WABM-TV, Talladega Prison Staffer Arrested on Obstruction, Resisting Charges (April 16, 2026)

~ Thomas L. Root

Sentencing Commission Builds Us Up, Disappoints Again – Update for April 20, 2026

Leave a comment

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

BRINGING FORTH A MOUSE

The US Sentencing Commission held its long-anticipated April meeting last Thursday, taking up weighty proposals to reduce the methamphetamine purity guidelines and to bring some sense to the career offender label.

It brought forth a mouse.

No changes in meth, no changes in career offender status…. Everything that was adopted passed quickly and unanimously. Everything that was abandoned disappeared without comment, like one of those old-time Kremlin photos where the image of a newly-disfavored apparatchik was crudely cut out of an official photo.

Writing in the Sentencing Matters substack, Jonathan Wroblewski (a 35-year veteran of the Dept of Justice and long-time ex officio member of the Sentencing Commission) summed up last week’s meeting:

With expectations high, the Commission’s 2024–25 and 2025–26 amendment years ended in April 2025 and again last Thursday with short, opaque public meetings — genuinely unbecoming given the importance of the issues at stake and the extensive process leading up to them. The Commission voted on some of the published amendment proposals but not on others. It offered no explanation for the consequential choices it made and the actions it took. It was a profound disappointment in transparent policymaking.

As has become its habit, the Commission held a short and seemingly scripted meeting in which nothing was discussed, nothing was debated, and nothing was explained. Like the backlog of guidelines for which retroactivity was proposed in 2024 and 2025 – only to die without further mention – the guideline amendments that were rejected simply disappeared.

The proposed amendments that made it through the Commission’s process include

  • addition of new paths for offenders to get credit for presentence rehabilitative efforts.
  • increased emphasis on the availability of sentences eligible for probation, home confinement and split sentences.
  • restructuring of the loss table for economic crimes to account for inflation over the past decade.
  • elimination of the sophisticated means enhancement, and
  • a new enhancement to account for the non-economic harm suffered by victims of economic crimes.

The only drug guideline change to be adopted was a boost in fentanyl-related sentencing levels, adopted to implement the HALT Fentanyl Act of 2025 (HR 27). Apparently, for all of the options proposed to moderate the meth guidelines, the Commission decided to do nothing. I say “apparently” because, as usual, the USSC provided no explanation why some proposals did not make the cut.

The abandonment of the “career offender” proposal is troubling. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 directs the Commission to ensure that “career offenders” receive sentences near the statutory maximum. The Commission’s definition of what constitutes a career offender, however, has caught many defendants in the net whose criminal histories do not suggest “career criminal” by any stretch of the imagination.

The change in the “career offender” guidelines would have abandoned the current “categorical approach” to what prior convictions were crimes of violence or drug offenses, substituting instead a list of federal and state crimes that apply. Burglary would no longer apply, felonies of any kind for which the defendant served less than 90 days would not apply, and defendants would have a chance to show that some crimes of violence should not count because their conduct was completely nonviolent.

Forget that change.

Last December, the Commission asked for public comment on options to change the methamphetamine guidelines. One proposal is to simply eliminate the Guidelines distinction among a meth mixture, meth (actual), and high-purity ice. All meth would be scored the same. An alternative option would be to keep the distinctions in the current meth Guidelines but offer reductions for people who had minor roles, who qualified for the 18 USC § 3553(f) safety valve, or who were involved only because of family relationships or duress.

Forget that change, too.

The commission, chaired by U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves (SD Mississippi), currently has five voting members, with two empty seats. During President Trump’s first term, the Commission lost its quorum. Trump appointed people so far outside the mainstream – such as Eastern District of Virginia US District Judge Henry “Hang “Em High” Hudson – that even a Republican-controlled Senate wouldn’t confirm them. The upshot was that the Commission went five years without being able to amend the Guidelines until President Biden appointed new members.

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, said, “In the end, though, the amendments voted on today are more fairly described as modest rather than major. I am generally inclined to want to celebrate the ‘less is more’ character of today’s amendment. And yet, with the Commission’s very future a bit uncertain given current and possible future Commissioner vacancies…”

Professor Wroblewski asks the thoughtful question: “So, as we pass the end of the 2026 statutory guideline amendment window and head to the end of the terms of two more of President Biden’s commissioners, what are we left with?”

The nutshell answer? Lost opportunities.

USSC, Reader-Friendly Proposed Sentencing Amendments (April 16, 2026)

Sentencing Matters, The Failure of President Biden’s Sentencing Commission (April 20, 2026)

Law 360, Sentencing Commission Votes To Enact Modest Reform Agenda (April 16, 2026)

National Law Journal, ‘No Longer One Size Fits All’: Tweaks to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines May Ease White-Collar Penalties, Cut Litigation (April 17, 2026)

HR 27, HALT Fentanyl Act of 2025

Sentencing Law and Policy, After lots of major proposals, US Sentencing Commission adopts some modest guideline reforms (April 16, 2026)

~ Thomas L. Root

Billions for a Presidential Whim – Update for April 17, 2026

Leave a comment

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

MONEY AND WASTE – THE BOP LAST WEEK

The Trump Administration’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget wish list proposes a $1.7 billion increase to the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ current $8.1 billion budget, building on the $5 billion extra funding for prison repair and staffing the BOP got in last summer’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Tucked into the $1.7 billion is $152 million allocated for the first year of costs to rebuild Alcatraz as a high-security federal prison facility, consistent with President Trump’s fixation of the symbolism of Alcatraz for a “tough on crime” administration. Last summer, the BOP trumpeted, “Alcatraz will stand as a beacon of American resolve, where the most dangerous offenders face accountability. For the public, it’s a promise fulfilled—a stronger, safer America. And for President Trump, it’s a project that will make our nation proud.”

We’re always proud to spend billions on a new supermax when we have a perfectly serviceable one in the high plains of Colorado.

The BOP could use some of its money more judiciously, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) told the Internet newsroom NOTUS last week. Booker complained that the BOP frequently transfers inmates to halfway houses long past when they are eligible, wasting millions of dollars in interest payments to nonprofits. “And while BOP said it’s making progress on addressing the delays,” NOTUS reports, Booker “said it’s not happening fast enough.”

“At best, this is an infrastructure and process failure; at worst, a blatant disregard for the law and public safety,” Booker, one of the co-sponsors of the First Step Act, said in a statement to NOTUS.

Homeland Security Today, Trump FY2027 Budget Proposes Record Homeland Security Boost, $1.5T Defense Spending Surge (April 5, 2026)

Filter, White House Budget: No Funds for Housing, Some for Reopening Alcatraz (April 9, 2026)

NOTUS, Bureau of Prisons Wastes Millions Holding Inmates It Could Transfer to Halfway Houses (April 7, 2027)

~ Thomas L. Root

Supremes Still Dodging § 922(g)(1) Constitutionality – Update for April 16, 2026

Leave a comment

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

922(g) CONSTITUTIONALITY STILL UNSETTLED

The Supreme Court last month denied certiorari to a dozen pending 18 USC § 922(g)(1) petitions for review filed by people who argued that the statute – which prohibits possession of guns by a variety of different classes of people from wife-beaters to dopers to ex-felons – violates the 2nd Amendment as applied to them. These included what I thought was the best felon-in-possession case before it, Vincent v. United States.

The Vincent petitioner had a felony bad-check charge from 15 years before, but had since beaten her substance abuse, obtained a master’s degree and opened her own substance abuse counseling clinic. The 10th Circuit held that § 922(g)(1) constitutionally prevented her from owning a gun. After multiple relistings, SCOTUS decided it would not use Vincent to address the limitations of § 922(g)(1).

Last week, SCOTUSBlog reviewed the status of Supreme Court gun litigation. With respect to § 922(g)(1), it noted that “Justice Amy Coney Barrett is already on record opining that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to individuals convicted of non-violent crimes. After all, the historical tradition recognized in Rahimi extends only to dangerous individuals.” Several lower courts have agreed.

There is a well-developed circuit split on the question. However, the justices seem to be opting to see how the lower courts decide cases in the wake of whatever guidance it will provide when it decides Hemani in the next 75 days.  

The government has been selective about seeking SCOTUS review in the felon cases it has lost in the lower courts, such as largely limiting itself to decisions involving drug use (most likely to be affected by the decision in Hemani). The United States has also argued that the court should await the results of a DOJ rulemaking to provide a process for ex-felons – such as President Trump – to win back their gun rights. But 2nd Amendment advocates argue that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to nondangerous felons, and a program that bestows gun rights on people the government deems deserving turns a constitutional right into a privilege.

Two weeks ago, the 7th Circuit ruled in two separate cases that 18 USC § 922(g)(1) was not unconstitutional on its face or as applied to a defendant. The Court cited a long list of cases from other circuits finding § 922(g) was consistent with the 2nd Amendment, and said, “It is enough to cite the decisions we have mentioned, plus United States v. Watson, which is being released contemporaneously. Watson and the decisions in other circuits say all that is necessary. As in Watson, we reserve decision on as-applied challenges by persons whose felony convictions do not suggest that firearms would be dangerous in their hands. Some courts of appeals allow such challenges; some do not; in this circuit the issue is open. For a person such as Prince, however, once the general validity of § 922(g)(1) has been established, there is nothing more to say.”

SCOTUSBlog, The who, what, and where of gun control (April 7, 2026)

United States v. Hemani, Case No. 24-1234 (argued March 2, 2026)

United States v. Prince, Case No. 23-3155, 2026 U.S.App. LEXIS 9596 (7th Cir. April 2, 2026)

United States v. Watson, Case No. 24-2432, 2026 U.S.App. LEXIS 9597 (7th Cir. April 2, 2026)

~ Thomas L. Root

Sentencing Commission to Adopt Proposed Amendments On Thursday – Update for April 14, 2026

Leave a comment

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

HERE COME THE NEW GUIDELINES

The US Sentencing Commission has set a meeting for Thursday, April 16, to adopt proposed amendments for the coming amendment cycle.

The Sentencing Reform Act requires that any proposed Guidelines amendments be sent to Congress by May 1. The Commission typically adopts its slate of amendments in April. Congress then has 6 months to vote down any amendment it doesn’t like. If Congress does nothing (which it has done all but once in the SRA’s 36-year history), the amendments will become effective on Nov 1.

For many prisoners, the most important proposed change would be the options to modify the methamphetamine guidelines. One proposal (Option 1) is to simply eliminate the Guidelines distinction among a meth mixture, meth (actual), and high-purity ice. All meth would be scored the same.

An alternative option (Option 2) would be to keep the distinctions in the current meth Guidelines but offer reductions for people who had minor roles, who qualified for the 18 USC § 3553(f) safety valve, or who were involved only because of family relationships or duress.

For theft and economic crimes, the Commission rolled out a proposal to raise the loss tables (which drive the offense level) by an average of 40%, both to simplify application and to adjust for inflation (which was done last 11 years ago).

In a separate proposal, the USSC seeks comment on a proposal to “simplify” the USSG § 2B1.1 loss table by reducing it from 16 levels to 7, with jumps of 4 points for each level. Additionally, the Commission suggests a new USSG § 2B1.1 enhancement to reflect noneconomic harm to victims, such as physical, psychological harm, emotional, and reputational damage, or invasion of privacy.

More interesting is a USSC request for comment on redefinition of the “sophisticated means” enhancement set out in § 2B1.1(b)(10). Currently, “sophisticated means” is widely applied by courts to virtually any economic offense more complex than stealing from a Salvation Army kettle. The Commission seeks to return the “sophisticated means” enhancement to what was originally intended, “committing or concealing an offense with a greater level of complexity than typical for an offense of that nature” and provide further guidance for courts to use when determining whether conduct fits the definition.

Also up for consideration are proposals to expand the sentencing ranges that should be eligible for probation, home confinement, and “split sentences” (half in prison, half on home confinement). More significant are proposed changes in the Guidelines governing whether someone is considered a “career offender,” a label that dramatically increases the advisory sentencing range a defendant faces. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 directs the Commission to ensure that “career offenders” receive sentences near the statutory maximum. The Commission’s definition of what constitutes a career offender, however, has caught many defendants in the net whose criminal histories do not suggest “career criminal” by any stretch of the imagination.

None of the proposed amendments will apply to people already sentenced unless the Commission holds a separate proceeding to decide whether retroactivity should apply to any of the amendments.  The Commission has asked for comment on retroactivity in this amendment cycle, but while several amendments have been proposed for retroactivity since 2024, no decision has been made. The Commission has said that it wants to examine the procedure it employs to determine retroactivity, but so far, it’s been like the weather – everyone talks about it but no one does anything about it.

US Sentencing Commission, Public Notice of Meeting

~ Thomas L. Root

Supervised Release Revocation and Conditions: The Gifts That Keep On Giving – Update for April 13, 2026

Leave a comment

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

THE GOVT GETS ITS WAY ON SUPERVISED RELEASE

The Prison Policy Initiative reported last week that 3.6 million people – twice as many as in federal and state prisons and jails – are on probation, supervised release or parole. In the federal system, supervised release – the federal version of post-incarceration parole – is so pervasive that Congress conditioned getting a 12-month sentence reduction under 18 USC § 3624(g)(3) to the inmate having supervised release as part of his sentence.

So it’s pervasive if not popular. And while how the feds manage supervised release is not very important to people who are still currently locked up, it will be very soon.

Two Circuit decisions in the past week addressed two important details of supervised release, how far a court may go in imposing conditions that govern a person on supervised release and how a court can impose if someone violates those conditions.

Joe Castellano did 12 years transporting child sexual abuse material in violation of 18 USC § 2252A(a)(1). After he got out, he started a lifetime term supervised release with special conditions, one of which prohibited his from accessing or possessing “any pornographic material or pictures displaying nudity or any magazines using juvenile models or pictures of juveniles.”

He violated this condition within weeks of getting out by possessing legal, adult porn, and was sent back to prison for 9 months. After that return, he quickly violated the adult porn ban again, and went back for another 20 months. After he did that time, he violated the adult porn ban a third time and got sent back for another 24 months.

Joe tried to get the ban dropped for adult porn, arguing that the condition was vague, overbroad and didn’t advance the goals of supervision. The district court refused.  Joe appealed, and the 4th Circuit threw the condition out because it wasn’t supported by any “individualized evidence to meet 18 USC § 3583(d)’s ‘reasonably related’ standard” and that “the government didn’t offer any individualized evidence, like the testimony from a witness responsible for Joe’s treatment.”

Joe then got caught having contact with minors, and the district court sent him back to prison for 12 months. Joe then consented to a new condition that banned him from looking at any ‘visual depiction’ of ‘sexually explicit conduct,’ a ban that did not include legal porn. Joe violated that one in two months.

The government then asked the district court to impose a special condition prohibiting Joe’s access to any pornography (even legal), in any form. The government called Joe’s sex offender treatment provider as a witness. She testified in detail that Joe’s use of even legal porn “are barriers to him to be able to make any progress in treatment.” She recommended the total porn ban be reinstated, and the district court agreed.

Joe appealed, but last week, the 4th Circuit upheld the district court. The Circuit ruled that the treatment provider gave “an individualized assessment for why a legal pornography restriction was necessary… [b]ased on six years of clinical observation and treatment.” The 4th held that “[t]he district court relied on individualized evidence, not categorical reasoning,” and for that reason the modification was upheld.

Meanwhile, in the 8th Circuit, Jessie Farmer – who had served the statutory maximum sentence for a drug offense – was sent back to prison for 12 months for violating a supervised release condition. Jessie argued that the 12-month additional term – required by 18 USC § 3583(g) where the defendant refuses to comply with drug testing or tests positive for illegal drugs more than three times in a year – required a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt to extend prison time beyond the statutory maximum he had already served.

The 8th Circuit rejected Jessie’s claim, holding that a badly split Supreme Court decision in the 2019 United States v. Haymond case did not support his position. In Haymond, a provision of § 3583 requiring a court to revoke supervised release and impose a mandatory 5-year term for a new sex offense was declared unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey. But here, supervised release was revoked not for a new federal offense (that would require a jury and reasonable-doubt standard), but for simple drug testing failures. The mandatory additional prison term could be skipped by the judge under § 3583(d), and if a prison term was imposed, the judge could select how long that term could be. The fact Jessie had already served the statutory max for his underlying offense simply did not matter.

Prison Policy Initiative, Punishment Beyond Prisons 2026: Incarceration and supervision by state (April 8, 2026)

United States v. Farmer, Case No. 25-1134, 2026 U.S.App. LEXIS 10371 (8th Cir. April 10, 2026)

United States v. Castellano, Case No. 25-4012, 2026 U.S.App. LEXIS 9822 (4th Cir. April 6, 2026)

~ Thomas L. Root

DOJ Drops 23,000 Cases To Nab a Kid in a Bunny Hat – Update for April 11, 2026

Leave a comment

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

RIGHT PLACE, WRONG TIME

It turns out that a lot of people now doing federal prison time were just caught at the wrong time.

Their cases should have been referred to the DOJ last spring. The odds of not being prosecuted would have been much better.

ProPublica reported last week that in the first days after Pam Bondi – who President Trump fired last week – became Attorney General last year, DOJ quietly closed more than 23,000 criminal cases in the first six months of President Donald Trump’s administration, “abandoning hundreds of investigations into terrorism, white-collar crime, drugs and other offenses as it shifted resources to pursue immigration cases,” according to Pro Publica.

The bulk of these cases were closed without prosecution (called “declinations”). They had been referred to DOJ by law enforcement agencies under prior administrations. While the DOJ routinely declines cases for a number of reasons, the sheer number – about a third of the total number of federal criminal cases brought in a given year – was unprecedented.

DOJ brought 32,000 immigration cases through July 2025, nearly triple the number brought by the Biden administration. It pursued fewer prosecutions of nearly every other type of crime — from drug offenses to corruption — than new administrations in their first six months dating back 15 years.

ProPublica, Trump’s Justice Department Dropped 23,000 Criminal Investigations in Shift to Immigration (March 31, 2026)

~ Thomas L. Root

Bad Boys, Island Living, and Money – Update for April 9, 2026

Leave a comment

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

BOP IN THE NEWS

True Crime:  Sandra Barnes, Deputy Assistant Inspector General for the Office of Inspector General’s Investigations Division, said the office receives about 17,000 complaints a year and that roughly 80% of them concern the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

On Transparency Talk, Barnes described how the Investigations Division is organized into nine regions and two specialty offices, and said roughly 95% of cases open as criminal inquiries. “We’re running two investigations for every case that we have,” she said, meaning the OIG pursues both criminal allegations and parallel administrative-misconduct reviews.

Barnes said common criminal allegations include introduction of contraband, bribery, excessive use of force and staff sexual abuse.

Citizens Portal, Deputy Assistant Inspector General Sandra Barnes outlines OIG probes into BOP staff corruption and contraband (April 1, 2026)

Trump Asks Congress for Alcatraz Money:  President Trump is asking for $152 million from Congress to return Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay from a tourist attraction back into an enlarged and rebuilt maximum-security prison “to house America’s most ruthless and violent offenders.”

The New York Times said, “The plan faces immense political and practical roadblocks. It has generated enormous pushback in San Francisco, where tourism is one of the biggest industries and Alcatraz is at the top of many visitors’ itineraries.” The BOP already has a much more modern maximum-security facility in Florence, Colorado.

The island facility has not housed inmates since 1962.

The New York Times, Trump Seeks $152 Million to Begin to Turn Alcatraz Back Into a Prison (April 3, 2026)

On the Subject of Money…:  BOP Director William K. Marshall III admitted to Walter Pavlo last week that despite all of last summer’s optimism, the FY 2026 BOP budget was a disappointment. “We were very, very excited… we thought finally we’re going to be able to address some of these needs,” Pavlo reported that Marshall said. “And then we get the final bill, and it’s $8.1 billion. Significantly less than the $8.7 billion we believed was in the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

The BBB gave the BOP a one-time shot of an extra $5 billion – $3 billion for staffing and training, and $2 billion for infrastructure. Marshall said of the money for improvements, “We will use all of that, but we cannot rely on it for ongoing operations.” Leadership must now decide whether to stabilize current gaps or invest in long-term change.

Marshall told Pavlo the BOP is creating a dedicated office to oversee First Step Act implementation. “Our goal is to have 15 dedicated employees that exclusively work on FSA every day,” Pavlo reported that Marshall said. “For the first time ever, the BOP received $409 million as part of our budget for FSA Rick Stover said, “We scrutinized our FSA spending plan line-by-line. In doing so, we found funds that were not directly related to FSA implementation. That money was reallocated to other areas that directly impacted FSA. We did the same thing for the FSA-allocated positions. If we could not justify a direct connection to the position improving FSA implementation, we abolished it.’

Forbes, BOP Director Marshall Plots New Direction for the Bureau of Prisons (April 2, 2026)

~ Thomas L. Root

First They Treat You Bad… Then They Lie – Update for April 7, 2026

Leave a comment

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

NOTE TO GOVERNMENT LAWYER – DON’T TAKE THE BOP’S WORD FOR ANYTHING

You may remember the awful case of Frederick Bardell, the Federal Bureau of Prisons inmate whose colon cancer was ignored by the BOP until it was too late, and then, when the court ordered compassionate release, dumped him on the sidewalk in front of DFW Airport, expecting the wheelchair-bound man to board and change planes to get home.

Mr. Bardell made it only through the kindness of strangers. When his parents met at the Jacksonville airport, they took him straight to the hospital. Mr. Bardell died there a week later.

Senior US District Judge Roy Dalton was furious, holding the FCI Seagoville warden in contempt and asking the Dept of Justice Inspector General to look into it. The IG issued a Report a few months ago concluding that the BOP’s delayed scheduling of urgent medical appointments led to Mr. Bardell’s “death by treatable cancer.” Contributing to the debacle, the IG found, was the “DOJ’s reliance on the BOP’s representations without further Inquiry.”

The BOP’s inferior healthcare has reared up to bite another inmate, but unfortunately for the Bureau, the inmate had been sentenced by Judge Dalton. Justina Holland sought compassionate release for an untreated medical problem, with the Government predictably denying that there was any emergency. The Court told the BOP he would grant Justina’s compassionate release if the agency didn’t get her to a breast surgeon within a month. The BOP sent her to the wrong specialist, and when an appointment with the right one was made, so much time had elapsed that she wouldn’t get in until May. When the Judge ordered the government to produce Justina’s complete medical file (including an urgent referral to a specialist from the first week in January), he got Epstein-file treatment: a lot of pages, but the critical pages, the smoking guns – such as the doctor’s urgent referral – were missing.

Last week, Judge Dalton granted Justina’s compassionate release motion. He did not mince words:

The failure to provide inmates with urgent medical care is now a well-documented problem with the BOP. See OIG Report at 50–51. Three months ago, with lumps in both breasts and bleeding from the nipples, Ms. Holland received an urgent referral for a doctor’s appointment to check for cancer. She still has not seen a doctor. The BOP’s repeated failures—to timely provide Ms. Holland with an appointment, to get her to the right doctor, even to collect her complete medical records—self-evidently show that Ms. Holland has an extraordinary and compelling medical circumstance qualifying her for compassionate release.

The Judge blasted BOP healthcare: “Nothing seems to move the nation’s federal prison system operators to improve their response to the urgent medical needs of the federal prison population,” he wrote. “Court orders go unread or ignored. OIG reports are dismissed, recommendations unheeded. Sanctions brook no change. Outside medical referrals are like Solzhenitsyn’s sick bay in the Soviet Gulag: a coveted but nearly inaccessible refuge for which only prisoners near death qualify for admission.”

He was equally blunt about the BOP’s reputation for truthfulness: Department of DOJ attorneys must be mindful in dealing with the BOP to ensure they comply with their duty of candor to the Court. A client who repeatedly fails to comply with court orders and OIG recommendations falls into the ‘trust but verify’ category of governmental agencies. There can be no presumption of regularity. The BOP will emerge unscathed, while the Government’s lawyer—and most importantly, the inmate—will carry the scars of its misfeasance.”

The BOP’s habits of misrepresenting inmate healthcare is hardly new.  But the agency should probably avoid trying its prevarications and half-truths on the same judge more than once.  This attempt did not end well for the agency (but Justina was granted compassionate release, and is presumably getting timely healthcare once again).

So there’s one winner here…

Order (Doc 207), United States v. Holland, Case No. 6:20-cr-86 (MD Fla, March 31, 2026)

NOTUS, A Federal Judge Compared the U.S. Prison System to a ‘Soviet Gulag’ Over Inmate Health Concerns (April 3, 2026)

~ Thomas L. Root

Courts Are Expected to Apply Supervised Release Policies, Not Create Them, 6th Circuit Says – Update for April 6, 2026

Leave a comment

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

6th CIRCUIT SAYS NO TO ARBITRARY TIME ‘POLICIES’ ON SUPERVISED RELEASE TERMINATION

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty told Alice in Through the Looking Glass, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Under the supervised release statute – 18 USC § 3583 – a former prisoner on supervised release can apply to have his supervised release terminated after one year, no matter how long a period of supervised release he’s serving. Although the Sentencing Commission has said that district courts should favor early termination, there is an unfortunate history of district courts and probation officers adopting their own policies that hold the minimum time to be served on supervised release before early termination is what they say it is. No matter that § 3583(e) specifies early termination can be granted “after the expiration of one year of supervised release: to them, ‘one year’ may mean 18 months or two years or 50% or even – as one Probation Officer told me once –the judge she was working believed that everyone should serve their full supervised release term and not a day less.

The statute means what they choose it to mean. Humpty would be proud.

I have run into more than my share of probation officers and district judges who write their own blanket policies on when former prisoners can get off supervised release. It’s maddening that someone’s superlative history in prison and on supervised release means nothing stacked against their “policies.” And last week, the 6th Circuit said as much.

Guy Collins was sentenced to 240 months in 2010 for a methamphetamine offense. After the First Step Act passed, Guy’s sentence was cut to 180 months, with his judge finding that Guy’s “post-sentencing rehabilitation has been extensive, as evidenced by his [prison programming] report and the letter appended to his motion.” Guy was 56 years old at the time and “ha[d] by all accounts turned his life around,” the Court said.

After his release, Guy began an 8-year supervised release term. After a year, Guy moved for early termination of supervised release under 18 USC § 3583(e)(1). The district court denied the first motion despite holding that further supervision appeared “unnecessary.” Nonetheless, the court denied the motion, holding that “the seriousness of [Guy’s] offense—trafficking crack cocaine — and his extensive criminal history,” argued against early termination, and “noted that Congress had mandated a minimum supervision term of eight years for defendants similarly situated” to Guy.

Sixteen months later, Guy tried again. The Court denied him again, applauding Guy’s good conduct but noting that he“has still not completed half of his term of supervision. As Defendant’s counsel is aware, the Court, as a matter of custom, will not consider a defendant’s request for early termination until he has completed at least half of his term of supervision.”

Guy appealed, but then filed a third motion for early termination, which he called a “renewed” motion. He asked the District Court to rule it would grant his renewed motion for early termination of supervised release if it had jurisdiction to do so, that is, if the denial of the prior one wasn’t on appeal. The District Court refused the motions but emphasized that its 50% custom “is precisely that—a custom, not an unbending rule—and the Court applies it with deference and adherence to the individualized inquiry that must accompany any analysis under § 3553(a)’s factors.”

The 6th Circuit reversed the District Court’s denial of Guy’s motion, ruling that “district courts cannot employ a blanket rule requiring defendants to complete a certain proportion of their supervised-release term without conducting an individualized assessment of the relevant § 3553(a) factors,’ and that the district court therefore abused its discretion by failing to consider the relevant § 3553(a) factors in Guy’s case. The Circuit held that the District Court did ‘not explain how, if at all, the proportion of his supervised-release term that Guy has completed pertains to any relevant § 3553(a) consideration. Indeed, it gives no indication that the district court considered the relevant § 3553(a) sentencing factors.”

The 6th held that the

amount of time a defendant has served cannot be the sole animating force behind a court’s early-termination decision—the statute mandates that such decisions flow from individualized inquiries based on the relevant § 3553(a) factors. A blanket rule, or custom, is not individualized. But assuming arguendo that the proportion completed can be considered for its bearing on some relevant § 3553(a) factor(s), a district court would need to be explicit in drawing that connection for a particular defendant: The proportion standing alone is not a relevant consideration… Congress imposed a minimum time requirement of one year, and a court may not add to that time requirement without tying its decision to the relevant statutory factors.

In its last order, the District Court concluded that “the need to adequately deter criminal conduct and protect the public from further crimes” counseled against giving Guy early termination. The Circuit rejected this makeweight: “[T]his finding… directly contradicts the court’s earlier statement in the First Order [that further supervised release was unnecessary]… The district court never explained why it changed its mind. Nor did it offer any other § 3553(a) factor to which the proportion of the term completed is relevant.”

United States v. Collins, Case No. 25-5395, 2026 U.S.App. LEXIS 9438 (6th Cir. April 1, 2026)

~ Thomas L. Root