All posts by lisa-legalinfo

Clemency in Dibs and Drabs – Update for August 6, 2019

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.

TRUMP GRANTS CLEMENCY TO A FEW MORE… TOO FEW MORE

President Trump last week commuted two sentences and granted pardons to five others who previously pleaded guilty to nonviolent crimes but have completed their sentences.

obtaining-clemencyTrump commuted the sentence of Ronen Nahmani, who was serving a 20-year sentence for conspiracy to distribute the synthetic drug “spice.” The White House said Ronen had no prior criminal history and has five young children at home, the oldest is 13 years old, and a wife battling terminal cancer. Trump noted his case for an early release received bipartisan support from legislators.

Trump also commuted the sentence of Ted Suhl, an Arkansas man convicted in 2016 on four counts of bribery after prosecutors said he took part in a scheme to increase Medicaid payments to his faith-based behavioral health-care center for juveniles company. Suhl lost at the 8th Circuit, and was preparing to file in the Supreme Court. The White House noted his “spotless disciplinary record” over three years in prison and highlighted support for the commutation from former Gov. Mike Huckabee and former U.S. Attorney Bud Cummins.

Trump pardoned five other people who had already served their sentences, for offenses ranging from transferred government property illegally to transporting marijuana, to running an illegal gambling parlor in 1987 and stealing guns from luggage.

With Monday’s announcements, Trump has now pardoned or reduced the sentences of 19 individuals since taking office. Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman noted in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog last Wednesday that with over 177,000 people in federal prison, “six commutations is, by all sensible measures, a very small number. The granting of only six commutations seems especially disappointing given that last year Prez Trump was talking about considering clemency requests that including “3,000 names, many of those names have been treated unfairly, … [and] in some cases, their sentences are far too long.”

clemency170206Trump’s six clemency grants in his first term beats the first term records of every president since Reagan. The record is still held by Nixon, who granted 48 clemencies in his first term. Berman noted “that so very few federal prisoners have recently received clemency while the federal prison population has swelled makes these numbers even more depressing. The also look terrible if we look back further historically, as almost every other 20th Century US President (except for Dwight Eisenhower) granted a hundred or more commutations while in office (with Woodrow Wilson granting 341 in 1920 alone).”

The Hill, Trump announces seven pardons or commutations (July 29)

Wall Street Journal, Trump Commutes Prison Sentences in Medicaid Bribery, Drug Cases (July 29)

Sentencing Law and Policy, A (depressing) first-term scorecard for recent presidents (July 30)

– Thomas L. Root

4th Circuit Holds Plea Agreement Waiver Does Not Block Johnson/Dimaya/Davis Claims – Update for August 5, 2019

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.

DODGING THE WAIVER

190805myopiaA type of myopia common among federal defendants filing post-conviction § 2255 motions is understandable: people get so focused on their substantive issues – the prosecutor lied, the defense attorney slept, the judge was inept – that no one ever asks whether some arcane issue of procedure will defeat his or her claim before the merits are ever reached.

One of the first procedural issues I usually worry about is the waiver. Face it, 97% of federal inmates plead guilty, and almost all of them sign some kind of plea agreement. And almost all plea agreements include a waiver section, in which a defendant waives the right to appeal or to collaterally attack (as in, file a § 2255 motion) the conviction or sentence. There is always an exception in the case of prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel, but what happens when something like Johnson v. United States or Sessions v. Dimaya or United States v. Davis comes along?

Randall Cornette, convicted of a felon-in-possession charge, challenged his Armed Career Criminal Act sentence. The trial court had relied on some old Georgia burglaries that Randy said could no longer count under Johnson. The government replied that Randy had signed a plea agreement waiver that prevented him from raising a Johnson issue.Waivers160215

Last week, the 4th Circuit ruled that a plea agreement waiver does not prevent a defendant from taking advantage of Supreme Court decisions like Johnson or Davis. The appeals court ruled that an otherwise valid appeal waiver did not bar Randy from now arguing that by imposing a sentence under the unconstitutional residual clause of the ACCA, the district court exceeded its statutory authority to sentence him.

The Court said that an appeal waiver does not preclude a defendant from challenging a sentence “based on a constitutionally impermissible factor” or “a sentence imposed in excess of the maximum penalty provided by statute.” Randy’s sentence challenge is based on the assertion that the district court did not have the statutory authority to impose the sentence under to the residual clause. Because Johnson was made retroactive by the Supreme Court, the Circuit said, “all sentences rendered under the residual clause became unconstitutional. Therefore, Randy’s sentence was imposed in excess of the maximum penalty provided by ACCA.”

The 4th said that this doesn’t mean that a non-retroactive change in the law, like Booker or Alleyne, can be challenged where there is a collateral-attack waiver. But where a Supreme Court case (like Davis, for instance) “announces a substantive rule that applies retroactively, the district court is now deemed to have had no statutory authority to impose [a] sentence,” and a court may review a sentencing challenge “notwithstanding the appeal waiver.”

United States v. Cornette, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22554 (4th Cir. July 30, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

DOJ Just Trying to be Fair – Update for July 30, 2019

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.

SOME AUSAS ARGUING AGAINST FSA RETROACTIVE SENTENCES

Inmates filing for retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act to crack sentences imposed before August 2010 have run into a confusing morass of judicial interpretations and U.S. Attorney’s Office positions.

A substantial number (1,610, according to the Dept. of Justice a week ago) have received sentencing reductions. A number of others in a few districts are sitting in limbo, on file for months without action. Still others are like Monae Davis, who walked out of prison March 7 because of the retroactive Fair Sentencing Act (included as Section 403 of the First Step Act) . But as Monae looks for work and re-connects with his family, prosecutors are working to undo the resentencing that shaved six years off his 20-year prison sentence, because the government says the amount of drugs they handled was too large to qualify for a reduced sentence.

smails190730Monae pled guilty to selling 50 grams or more of crack, resulting in his 20-year sentence. Under the retro FSA, that carries a minimum sentence of five years, less than half the time he has already served. But prosecutors say Monae should not get a break, because in his plea deal he admitted to handling between 1.5 kilograms and 4.5 kilograms. That’s too high, even under current law and guidelines, to qualify for a sentence reduction.

DOJ told Reuters last week that it is just trying to ensure that prisoners seeking relief under the First Step Act aren’t treated more leniently than defendants now facing prosecution. DOJ said prosecutors now have a greater incentive than previously to bring charges that more closely reflect the total amount of drugs they believe to be involved. “This is a fairness issue,” a DOJ spokesman said.

Speaking of fairness, Attorney General William Barr announced last Thursday that the BOP would resume executions of inmates sentenced to death in December, with five lethal injections scheduled through the end of January 2020. “The Justice Department upholds the rule of law — and we owe it to the victims and their families to carry forward the sentence imposed by our justice system,” Barr said in a statement.

Reuters, As new U.S. law frees inmates, prosecutors seek to lock some back up (July 23)

Washington Post, Justice Department plans to restart capital punishment after long hiatus (July 25)

9TH CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT ELUDING IMMIGRATION ONLY HAPPENS AT PORTS OF ENTRY

Oracio Corrales-Vazquez, a Mexican citizen, walked into the US over the mountains east of Tecate, California. He only made it about four miles into U.S. territory when Customs and Border Patrol picked him up. Oracio was charged with eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers” in violation of 8 USC § 1325(a)(2).

immigrant190730Last week, a 9th Circuit panel reversed his conviction, holding that an alien who crosses into the country at a non-designated time or place is not guilty of a § 1325(a)(2) offense. Rather, to convict a defendant under § 1325(a)(2), the government must prove that the alien’s criminal conduct occurred at a time and place designated for “examination or inspection by immigration officers,” that is, at a port of entry open for inspection.

United States v. Corrales-Vazquez, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22063 (9th Cir. July 24, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Supreme Court Davis Decision Declared Retroactive By 11th Circuit – Update for July 29, 2019

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.

11th CIRCUIT HOLDS DAVIS TO BE RETROACTIVE

I have been asked a lot in the last month whether the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Davis would apply retroactively to convictions for using or carrying a gun during a violent or drug crime (violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) that were already final when the Davis decision was handed down June 24th. While I have always been sure that Davis ought to be retroactive, I was never completely confident that the courts of appeal would agree with me.

retro190729Last Tuesday, the 11th Circuit surprised me in a good way. Faced with a motion for permission to file a second-or-successive § 2255 motion (known as a “2244” because the request is filed under 28 USC § 2244) by a defendant whose § 924(c) conviction was based on a solicitation-to-murder count (and thus was invalid under Davis), the Circuit ruled that Davis is retroactive.

This retroactivity rule is important, because it opens the door for people who have filed 2255 motions already to get permission to file a second one challenging their § 924(c) convictions under the Davis ruling. Davis, you may recall, (1) affirmed that the categorical approach to judging whether a prior conviction was a crime of violence is the appropriate standard, rejecting several circuits’ claims that in a § 924(c) review, the court should look at a defendant’s actual conduct; (2) effectively ruled that conspiracies to commit crimes of violence (as well as solicitations and, quite possibly, attempts and accessories charges) are not crimes of violence; and (3) ruled that the § 924(c) residual clause, like the Armed Career Criminal Act and 18 USC § 16(b) residual clauses, was unconstitutionally vague.

violence160110The 11th Circuit held that Davis met all of the requirements for retroactivity. Davis announced a new substantive rule, because just as Johnson narrowed the scope of the ACCA, Davis narrowed the scope of 924(c) by interpreting the term “crime of violence.” And, the Circuit said, the rule announced in Davis is “new” because it extended Johnson and Dimaya to a new statute and context. “The Supreme Court in Davis restricted for the first time the class of persons § 924(c) could punish,” the appeals court said, “and, thus, the government’s ability to impose punishments on defendants under that statute. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Davis to resolve the circuit split on whether § 924(c)(3)(B) was unconstitutionally vague illustrates that the rule in Davis was not necessarily dictated by precedent or ‘apparent to all reasonable jurists’.”

While the Supreme Court has not held Davis to be retroactive, the 11th said, “the Supreme Court holdings in “multiple cases… necessarily dictates retroactivity of the new rule.” Davis announced a new substantive rule, the 11th held, “and Welch tells us that a new rule such as the one announced in Davis applies retroactively to criminal cases that became final before the new substantive rule was announced.”

Two days later, the 11th Circuit held that another defendant would be allowed to pursue his 924(c) claims under Davis, despite the fact he had tried and failed to do the same under Johnson and Dimaya. The fact that he had previously lost the same issue would not preclude a successive 2255, despite the fact that 11th Circuit precedent in In re Baptiste suggested otherwise. The court said the defendant’s “proposed Davis claim is not barred under In re Baptiste (concluding that a repeat § 2255 claim that was raised and rejected in a prior successive application is barred by [28 USC] 2244(b)(1)).” Although the rationale underlying Johnson and Dimaya on which the defendant’s prior successive applications were based is the same rationale that underlies Davis, his prior losses do not bar him raising the Johnson/Dimaya claim again, because “Davis announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law in its own right, separate and apart from (albeit primarily based on) Johnson and Dimaya.”

knuckles190729Other courts of appeal will have to weigh in on Davis retroactivity for inmates seeking 2244 permission in those circuits, but the 11th position, laid out in a detailed and well-reasoned published opinion, will wield substantial influence on those courts. The 11th, after, is notoriously stingy in granting 2244 motions (it was the circuit that turned down Greg Welch, whose case went on to establish that Johnson was retroactive in Welch v. United States), as well as the appeals court whose Ovalles opinion was directly contrary to what the Supreme Court decided in Davis). That this Circuit has articulated a basis for Davis retroactivity so soon after having its figurative knuckles rapped is a welcome surprise.

In re Hammoud, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21950 (11th Cir. July 23, 2019)

In re Cannon, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22238 (11th Cir. July 25. 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

The Short Rocket – Update for July 25, 2019

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 SHORT ROCKET

Some People Need to be Locked Up…

rocket-312767A lot of people rely on Angel Tree to provide gifts to their kids at Christmas. Angel Tree, in turn, relies on volunteers and donations to be able to fill prisoners’ wishes for their kids.

A Waco, Texas, Angel Tree volunteer who police say stole Christmas presents meant for children with parents in prison, was arrested last week.

According to the arrest affidavit, Charabe Allison would either give donated clothing to her own family members or exchange the items at stores for gift cards. She was caught because clothing was returned to a local store that a store worker had bought with an employee discount. Because such clothing was not returnable, management questioned the employee, who then reported that her donation to Angel Tree had been returned for credit.

Despite my predisposition against indiscriminate incarceration, I think this woman needs to be locked up…

Waco, Texas, Tribune, Angel Tree volunteer arrested, accused on exchanging gifts for store credit (July 16)

College Administrators Urge Full Repeal of Pell Ban…

Vivian Nixon, who as an Education Department employee pushed the 2015 Pell Grant experimental reinstatement for a limited number of incarcerated students last week told a meeting of college executives that Congress should lift the 1994 ban on federal student aid to prisoners.

pell160627Nixon, now director or the College and Community Fellowship, told proponents of college education that the success of the Second Chance Pell pilot program justifies full reinstatement of Pell Grants for incarcerated students. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, also a speaker, reaffirmed her support for the program, but said, “It’s Congress’s chance to act and do its job to make sure to extend this opportunity in a very sustainable and predictable way to many more people across our country.”

About 1,000 students have graduated with degrees or postsecondary certificates since the Second Chance program began in 2016. The Trump administration and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), chairman of the Senate education committee, support a repeal of the 1994 ban in a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.

Inside Higher Education, Taking Stock of Pell Grants Behind Bars (July 16)

BOP Officials Promoted and Given Bonuses Despite Tight Budgets and Infrastructure Failure…

The Bureau of Prisons paid $1.6 million in bonuses to its top executives and wardens during the past two years despite chronic staffing shortages and sharp critiques of prison management leveled by Congress, according to USA Today.

money160118The payments ranged from $5,400 to $23,800 per official. The largest sums went to the agency’s leadership team, including $20,399 to acting director Hugh Hurwitz, and the wardens of prisons who confronted what union officials described as dangerous shortages of guards.

Joseph Coakley, who managed USP Hazelton, where Whitey Bulger and two other inmates were murdered last year, received $20,399 on top of $34,500 paid out during 2015 and 2016 for his work at Hazelton and at FCI Beckley.

Meanwhile, Herman Quay, whose mishandling of the infrastructure crisis as warden of MDC Brooklyn last winter and bumbling coverup of the  freezing conditions and loss of electricity there during a cold snap made national headlines, has been promoted to warden at FCC Allenwood. At the new assignment, Quay is responsible for some 3,400 prisoners, about twice the residents of MDC Brooklyn.

A DOJ Inspector General’s investigation into the power loss is not yet complete, but Robert Gottheim, the district director for House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), complained, “It’s certainly not acceptable that the person who was responsible for the care of all the inmates at that facility, who from our perspective did not exercise due care, would then be getting a promotion to another facility, let alone a promotion before we have the investigation made public.”

USA Today, Federal prison officials get bonuses as staffing shortages, management problems persist (July 16)

The Intercept, The Warden tried to cover up a crisis at his freezing Brooklyn Jail — then he got promoted (July 17)

House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Women in Prison

Piper Kerman, author of the novel turned Netflix series “Orange is the New Black,” testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee on her experiences in federal prison last week.

kerman190725Kerman, reform advocate Cynthia Shank and others spoke at a hearing on women in the criminal justice system, to discuss ways to make sure women are not overlooked in the conversation on criminal justice reform and to argue for a shift in policy to directly impact the growing number of women in prison.

“Policies, not crime, drive incarceration,” Kerman said.

Women are now the fastest growing segment of the incarcerated population and initiatives to slow and even reverse the growth of the prison population have had disproportionately less effect on women, according to the Prison Policy Initiative. Nearly 150,000 women are pregnant when they are admitted into prison.

ABC News, House Judiciary subcommittee meets to discuss growing population of women behind bars (July 16)

– Thomas L. Root

Calling a Rose a Rose – Update for July 24, 2019

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.

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME…

“What’s in a name?” Shakespeare wrote. So why does it matter what an inmate filer calls his or her post-conviction motion under 28 USC §  2255?

rose190724A month before the statutory one-year deadline for filing his § 2255 motion, Richie Elam filed a document he called “Defendant’s Motion Requesting SPECIAL DISCOVERY HEARING to Determine if Level of Court-Appointed Representation was ADEQUATE, Pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act (18 USC § 3006A).” In the all caps-laden motion, Richie requested a hearing concerning whether he had received adequate representation. He also said his guilty plea was given under duress and contended that counsel coerced the plea.

After the 2255 deadline had passed, the district court held Rich had failed to establish that his case required appointment of counsel, saying “a defendant is not entitled to go on a fishing expedition prior to filing a § 2255 motion.” Richie then asked the court to construe the weirdly-titled motion as a § 2255 motion, but the district court refused to do so, saying that Richie knew that whatever his discovery request might have been, it “was not… a § 2255 motion.”

Richie appealed. Last week, the 7th Circuit granted the appeal and reinstated the motion Rich had filed as a § 2255 motion. The Court said dismissal of a first 2255 “is a particularly serious matter, for that dismissal denies the petitioner the protections of the Great Writ entirely, risking injury to an important interest in human liberty.” Because pro se habeas petitions are “not held to the same stringent and rigorous standards as are pleadings filed by lawyers,” the appellate panel wrote, “it is the substance of the relief sought by a pro se pleading, not the label that the petitioner has attached to it, that determines the true nature and operative effect of a habeas filing.”

illegible2255190724While the decision to recharacterize a motion is discretionary, here the district court abused that discretion. District courts must “determine the true nature of a pleading by its substance, not its label.” Here, Richie’s discovery motion, “although inartfully drafted, stated enough that it should have been liberally construed as a § 2255 motion. Rich asserted that his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel had been violated, resulting in a deprivation of his liberty. He “implicitly stated seven bases for his [ineffective assistance of counsel] claim” and maintained that his guilty plea was entered under duress. Liberally construed, that is enough to qualify Elam’s motion as a § 2255 motion.”

United States v. Elam, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2086 (7th Cir. July 15, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Bringing Forth A Mouse – Update for July 23, 2019

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 RELEASES THOUSANDS (FROM SOMEWHERE) LAST FRIDAY

release161117The Dept. of Justice crowed last Friday that “over 3,100 federal prison inmates will be released from the BOP’s custody as a result of the increase in good conduct time under the [First Step] Act.” You’d be forgiven for believing that it had all been DOJ’s idea, and that inmates streamed through the gates of federal prisons, straight from the cell to freedom.

But perhaps First Step merely brought forth a mouse. The problem, according to what I heard from a number of people at different institutions, no one seemed to be leaving.  With over 7,700 people on the LISA email list, I expected over 100 notifications from the BOP that inmates on the subscription list no longer had Corrlinks email accounts, a notice commonly received whenever someone is released and his or her Corrlinks account is closed. Instead, I got only 17.

FAMM president Kevin Ring told the Wall Street Journal that most of the 3,100 inmates released Friday were among the 8,300 BOP inmates already in halfway houses or the 2,200 on home confinement. Thus, the effect of the mass release, while reducing BOP population overall, was not noticeable at institutions. Reason magazine confirmed this, reporting today that “Most were released from halfway houses or home confinement where they were finishing out their sentences..”

Plus, as Mother Jones magazine complained last week, not all of last Friday’s releasees got to go home. “Roughly a quarter of them are not United States citizens,” the magazine said, “and many will instead be sent straight to immigration detention to face deportation proceedings, which could take years.” As it turns out, 900 released inmates were transferred to ICE or state authorities for deportation after being convicted of felonies, a result which predictably enough shocks Mother Jones but has been the law for 102 years, since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1917.

Most troubling are the numerous reports I have gotten that the BOP has not completed the recalculation of good time for most of the 151,000 inmates still in institutions. One source reported that the BOP is processing each inmate’s new time manually, and that it is able to complete 5,000 a month. The reason for the glacial pace of recalculations is unclear, but it is hard to avoid noting that the BOP has had seven months to prepare for award of the additional good time.

bopmath190723How the agency is unable, after seven months of preparation, to automate recalculation through a rather simple computer algorithm is puzzling.

Dept of Justice, Department Of Justice Announces the Release of 3,100 Inmates Under First Step Act, Publishes Risk And Needs Assessment System (July 19)

Wall Street Journal, Justice Department Set to Free 3,000 Prisoners as Criminal-Justice Overhaul Takes Hold (July 19)

Bureau of Prisons, Population Statistics (July 18)

Mother Jones, Congress Helped Thousands of People Get Out of Prison Early. But Many of Them Will Probably Be Deported Right Away (July 19)

Reason.com,Tucker Carlson’s Unhinged Rant Against Prison Reform Makes Us All Dumber (July 23)

USA Today, Federal government releases more than 2,200 people from prison as First Step Act kicks in (July 19)

– Thomas L. Root

I Felt The Earth Move Last Friday… Or Did I? – Update for July 22, 2019

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.

LAST FRIDAY, SOME PRISONERS FROM SOMEWHERE WERE PERHAPS RELEASED (WHO CAN SAY?) AND DOJ ROLLED OUT PROPOSED RISK ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 

Friday, July 19th was the day – a full 210 sunrises after President Trump signed the First Step Act into law. And, as required on that day, the Bureau of Prisons at long last credited federal inmates with the additional seven days per year promised them in the Act, and the  Dept. of Justice  released the risk assessment it proposes to have the Bureau of Prisons use to determine the likelihood that inmates will commit new offenses upon release.

A really big day… or was it?

yellowribbon190722Tie a Yellow Ribbon… Rahm Emmanuel may not have said it first, but he made it famous when he counseled his then-boss, President Obama, to never let a good crisis go to waste. DOJ dragged its feet in setting up a panel to implement the risk assessment model that is at the heart of the First Step Act’s earned time credit program (which lets federal prisoners earn extra time off their sentences for successfully completing programs that reduce recidivism). The Department as well fought hammer and tong to avoid crediting inmates with the extra good time Congress always meant them to have (but did not because DOJ interpreted a poorly-written statute as harshly as possible), an error corrected in First Step. And DOJ has opposed countless motions under the newly-retroactive Fair Sentencing Act for reductions of draconian prison terms.

Nevertheless, when faced with a July 19 deadline even it could not deny, DOJ did not miss the chance last Friday to trumpet its successes under First Step, chief among them that “over 3,100 federal prison inmates will be released from the BOP’s custody as a result of the increase in good conduct time under the Act. In addition, the Act’s retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (reducing the disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine threshold amounts triggering mandatory minimum sentences) has resulted in 1,691 sentence reductions.”

tsunami190722So where was the flood of prisoner releases at the end of last week? As I heard from  people at a dozen or more institutions, no one seemed to be leaving. This was corroborated by my own observation. With over 7,700 people on the LISA newsletter email list, I expected over 100 notifications from BOP on Friday of people whose Corrlinks email accounts were closed because they had been freed (such a notice is sent whenever someone is released and his or her Corrlinks account is closed). Instead, I got only 17 such messages.

Here’s what happened. As FAMM president Kevin Ring told the Wall Street Journal,  most of the 3,100 inmates released Friday were already among the 8,300 BOP inmates in halfway houses or the 2,200 people on home confinement. Thus, alleged tsunami of prisoner releases – while reducing BOP population overall – was a barely-noticeable ripple at the institutions.

Plus, as Mother Jones magazine complained last week, not all of last Friday’s releasees got to go home. “Roughly a quarter of them are not United States citizens,” the magazine said, “and many will instead be sent straight to immigration detention to face deportation proceedings, which could take years.” As it turns out, USA Today reported, 900 released inmates were transferred to ICE or state authorities.

tortoise190722Inmate Sentence Recomputation More Tortoise Than Hare…  More troubling are the numerous reports I have gotten from inmates and their families that BOP has not yet completed the recalculation of good time for most of the 151,000 inmates still in institutions. One inmates father reported that the BOP’s Grand Prairie, Texas, Designation and Sentence Computation  Center told him that the agency is processing each inmate’s new time manually, and that it is able to complete no more than 5,000 a month.

The reason for the glacial pace of recalculations is unclear, but it is hard to avoid noting that the BOP has had seven months to prepare for award of the additional good time. How the agency is unable, after seven months of preparation, to automate recalculation through a rather simple computer algorithm is puzzling.

recid160321I see a PATTERN Here… One of First Step’s marquee accomplishments is to establish a system that ranks each inmate’s risk of being a recidivist, and then tracks that risk throughout the inmate’s sentence. The inmate (unless he or she falls in one of the 60-plus “ineligible” categories) may take programs identified by the BOP as proven to reduce recidivism, and get up to 15 days credit a month for doing so. The credit may be used to reduce the length of his or her incarceration by up to 12 months, and beyond that, to earn the inmate extra halfway house or home confinement time.

Before the program is implemented, the DOJ must adopt a system to rank prisoners’ recidivism risk. On the last afternoon of the 210-day period First Step gave DOJ for doing so, it unveiled its proposed system, which goes by the unwieldy name “Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs.” Luckily, the name collapses conveniently into the acronym “PATTERN.”

PATTERN will classify a BOP prisoner into one of four Risk Level Categories (“RLCs”) by scoring him or her in much the same way security and custody levels are calculated by the BOP. PATTERN does this by assigning points in 17 different categories. The highest possible score (like golf, no one wants a high score) is 100. The lowest score is -50.

PATTERNB190722

This is roughly how it works: PATTERN has four different predictive models, 1) general recidivism for males; 2) general recidivism for females; 3) violent recidivism for males; and 4) violent recidivism for females. The Report noted that the base recidivism rate for all offenders is roughly 47% for general and 15% for violent recidivism.

The categories in which points are scored include (1) age of first conviction, (2) age at time of assignment, (3) prison infractions, (4) serious prison infractions, (5) number of programs completed, (6) number of tech or vocational courses completed, (7) UNICOR employment, (8) drug treatment, (9) drug education, (10) FRP status, (11) whether current offense is violent, (12) whether current offense is sex-related, (13) criminal history score, (14) history of violent offenses, (15) history of escapes, (16) voluntary surrender, and (17) education.

Generally, any score of -50 to +10 is a minimum recidivism risk, 11 to 33 is a low recidivism risk, 34 to 45 is a medium recidivism risk, and 46 or higher is a high risk. Its designers say “the PATTERN assessment instrument contains static risk factors as well as dynamic items that are associated with either an increase or a reduction in risk… PATTERN is a gender-specific assessment providing predictive models, or scales, developed and validated for males and females separately. These efforts make the tool more gender responsive, as prior findings have indicated the importance of gender-specific modeling.”

This means that as an inmate goes without getting disciplinary reports for infractions of prison rules, completes programs, keeps up with payment of fines and restitution, takes drug classes and gets older, his or her RLC category should fall. Even high and medium RLCs can earn credit for taking programs at the rate of 10 days per month, but once the RLC falls to low, that rate increases to 15 days per month.

PATTERNA190722So what BOP programs will build earned time credit? No one has said yet, but the PATTERN report offers clues. The PATTERN categories suggest that UNICOR employment, drug classes, GED and vocational programs ought to count, given PATTERN’s emphasis on importance of completion of those courses in the point system.

PATTERN is not yet a done deal. What happens next is a 90-day public comment period on PATTERN rules. Final rules will issue by Thanksgiving, with BOP staff being trained in applying PATTERN. Do not expect any PATTERN assessment to be done for real until Martin Luther King Day.

Dept. of Justice, Department of Justice Announces the Release of 3,100 Inmates Under First Step Act, Publishes Risk And Needs Assessment System (July 19)

Wall Street Journal, Justice Department Set to Free 3,000 Prisoners as Criminal-Justice Overhaul Takes Hold (July 19)

Bureau of Prisons, Population Statistics (July 18)

Mother Jones, Congress Helped Thousands of People Get Out of Prison Early. But Many of Them Will Probably Be Deported Right Away (July 19)

USA Today, Federal government releases more than 2,200 people from prison as First Step Act kicks in (July 19)

Dept. of Justice, The First Step Act of 2018: Risk and Needs Assessment System (July 19, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

3rd Circuit OKs § 2255 Amendment as “Relating Back” – Update for July 18, 2019

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.

3RD CIRCUIT EXPLAINS WHEN 2255 AMENDMENT “RELATES BACK”

This may be an especially bad time to be talking about going back, but our topic has to do with an amendment going back (we call it relating back) to the date of the original filing. “Relating back” is important where statutes of limitations might otherwise preclude raising a claim.

go-back-security-sign-k-0138-lRule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lets a 28 USC § 2255 petitioner amend his or her petition, provided that the one-year deadline for raising issues (under 28 USC 2255(f)) has not yet passed or, if it has, if the amendment “relates back” to the original petition. When I was in law school, years before I had even heard of a § 2255 motion, the “relation back” standard of FRCivP 15(c) made no sense to me. My understanding hasn’t improved much in 45 years.

Two weeks ago, the 3rd Circuit tried to make sense of it. A § 2255 petitioner had filed a motion complaining that her trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective by, among other things, failing to argue at sentencing or on appeal, that the Presentence Report included certain errors, including an errant calculation with respect to the number-of-victims enhancement. In her amendment, the petitioner provided an explanation as to why her counsel was ineffective by failing to raise the errors.

In particular, petitioner said she would not have been eligible for the number-of-victims enhancement under the versions of the Guidelines that were in effect at the time of her alleged crime. According to petitioner, the PSR the district court relied upon at sentencing used the 2012 version of the Guidelines, which contained a broader definition of who may be considered a “victim” for purposes of determining eligibility for the number-of-victims enhancement. She said this made her eligible for the enhancement, and receiving a higher Guidelines range than she would have received under the 2006 and 2007 Guidelines.

The 3rd Circuit said this was a perfectly fine amendment. “These allegations merely are amendments that restate the original claim with greater particularity or amplify the factual circumstances surrounding the pertinent conduct, transaction, or occurrence in the preceding pleading,” and therefore the allegations contained in the motion to amend “fall within Rule 15(c)” and relate back to the date of petitioner’s initial habeas petition.”

The decision is a broad procedural holding in favor of § 2255 movants. It basically approves filing a skeleton § 2255 motion, and putting meat on its bones in a later amendment, even if the amendment well after the § 2255(f) deadline.

United States v. Santarelli, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20109 (3rd Cir. July 5, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Final Efforts Fail to Force BOP to Apply Additional Good Time Before July 19 – Update for July 17, 2019

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.

LAST-SECOND HAIL MARY ON GOOD TIME BATTED DOWN IN D.C. COURTROOM END ZONE

hailmary170613Sadly, football preseason is still a few weeks away, but that did not stop the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a D.C. legal foundation dedicated to fight federal agency infringement of liberties, from unloading a “Hail Mary” in its suit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons on behalf of an inmate late last month.

NCLA argued that its client, Robert Shipp, is due to be released in November under the old good-time calculation. But under the First Step Act, the extra good time he will get should have let him out in June. Even though he was due to be released from custody last month under a change in federal law, NCLA argued, “the BOP has refused to release him while it waits until July 19, 2019 to apply the new law at its discretion. There are some 4,000 federal prisoners like Shipp across the country who sit in limbo at BOP’s mercy.”

In the Washington Examiner last week, NCLA’s attorney said, “Each day the BOP ignores Congress’ orders, thousands of people continue to be held beyond their lawful release dates, away from their families. BOP is stealing time from them that they will never get back. Agencies like the BOP cannot wait until they find it convenient to follow the law; they should uphold the law and give people the good time credit they have earned.”

judge160229Unfortunately, life imitated sport. NCLA’s request for the emergency order was denied last week. With the clock running out, NCLA filed a motion for an emergency order telling the BOP to calculate the extra good time immediately. The judge held:

Shipp asserts that delaying the effectiveness of the amendment “makes no sense in light of the clearly stated Congressional intent to rectify the BOP’s previous actions in calculating good time credit.” He urges the application of the rule of lenity in his favor because “[a]t worst, the statute is silent as to the effective date for t[he]… good-time fix provision.” And he points to the legislative history of the act, which he contends shows that the good time credit amendment was intended to be effective immediately. But while it is sympathetic to Shipp’s position, the Court cannot agree with his interpretation of the Act. The statutory text clearly points to a single possible interpretation, which trumps any contrary indication of Congressional intent or in the Act’s legislative history. It may be that Section 102(b)(2) was inartfully drafted, and does not reflect what Congress intended in amending 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). But even if that were the case, “[i]t is beyond [the Court’s] province to rescue Congress from its drafting errors, and to provide for what [the Court] might think… is the preferred result.” Having determined that Section 102(b)(1)(A) is not yet effective, and thus that Defendants are not unlawfully failing to comply with their obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), the Court finds that Shipp’s claim is unlikely to succeed on the merits and it denies his emergency motion for injunctive relief.”

Memorandum Opinion and Order, Shipp v Hurwitz, Case 1:19-cv-01733-RC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113096 (D.D.C. July 9, 2019)

Washington Examiner, Despite sentencing reform, the US Bureau of Prisons is holding thousands of inmates illegally beyond their release dates (July 8)

– Thomas L. Root