All posts by lisa-legalinfo

COVID Emergency Too Good To End? – Update for September 30, 2022

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.

WHO CARES ABOUT THE END OF THE PANDEMIC?

President Biden, a man who always carefully weighs his words, told CBS last week that “the pandemic is over. We still have a problem with Covid. We’re still doing a lot of work on it. It’s — but the pandemic is over.”

deadcovid210914Last week, Sen Roger Marshall (R-KS), who is an obstetrician/ gynecologist, introduced a resolution that would end the national emergency first declared by President Donald J. Trump in March 2020. President Biden extended the national emergency in February 2021 and again in February 2022. The resolution has virtually no chance of passing both houses of Congress.

And at yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, Bureau of Prisons Director Colette S. Peters was braced by Sen Tom Cotton (R-AR), a bomb-thrower entranced by the sound of his own voice, who took time out from his off-topic argument with Sen Cory Booker (D-NJ) about who hated fentanyl more to demand that Peters admit that the pandemic was over. Director Peters wisely demurred.

So is the pandemic over? And does that really matter?

cotton171226Under the National Emergencies Act, a national emergency continues until (1) the president does not issue an annual continuation notice, (2) the president terminates it, or (3) a joint resolution of Congress terminates it. Because Biden most recently issued an annual continuation notice as of March 1, 2022, the national emergency will end on February 28, 2023 (absent additional action to extend it further or terminate it early).

All of this matters because CARES Act authority granted to the Bureau of Prisons to place prisoners on home confinement ends 30 days after the pandemic national emergency expires.

(Note: There are two emergencies out there.  One is the national emergency declared under the National Emergencies Act.  The other is the Covid-19 public health emergency, declared in January 2020 by the Health and Human Services Secretary and last extended in July 2022 for another 90 days. With all due respect to the coronavirus, the one we care about is the National Emergencies Act emergency. The Covid-19 public health emergency has no effect on Sec 12003 of the CARES Act).

The inmate rumor du jour for months has been that CARES Act placement has ended, will end imminently, or will end in February 2023. None of this is right, unless Biden declares the national emergency to be at an end. As of March 2020, 60 national emergencies had been declared since the National Emergencies Act was enacted in 1976. Over half of those have been renewed annually. The longest continuing national emergency dates back to Iran hostage crisis, 43 years ago.

But will the national emergency end in February 2023? The Wall Street Journal  last week suggested it would not:

moneyhum170419The reason is almost certainly money. [The CARES Act] enables the government to hand out billions of dollars in welfare benefits to millions of people as long as the emergency is in effect. This includes more generous food stamps and a restriction on state work requirements. It also limits states from removing from their Medicaid rolls individuals who are otherwise no longer financially eligible… Only weeks ago the Administration used a separate national emergency declaration related to the pandemic to legally justify canceling some $500 billion in student debt… Mr. Biden seems to want it both ways. He wants to reassure Americans tired of restrictions on their way of life that the pandemic is over and they can get on with their lives. But he wants to retain the official emergency so he can continue to expand the welfare state and force states to comply.

A final note.  Sen Richard Durbin, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, opened yesterday’s BOP oversight hearing by complaining, among other things, that the BOP had underused CARES Act and compassionate release authority.  Notwithstanding Sen. Cotton’s wacky views that the CARES Act has murderers and rapists again roaming our streets, there does not seem to be a lot of sentiment that CARES Act home confinement should end too soon.

CNN, Biden: ‘The pandemic is over’ (September 18, 2022)

Medical Economics, Senator moves to end COVID-19 pandemic national emergency (September 23, 2022)

Morgan Lewis, Preparing for the End of Covid-19 Emergency Periods: To-Dos for Plan Sponsors and Administrator (July 20, 2022)

Wall Street Journal, Is the Pandemic ‘Over,’ or Not? (September 19, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Director to Be Grilled By Senate Judiciary Committee Today – Update for September 29, 2022

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.

DURBIN TO GRILL BOP DIRECTOR AT THURSDAY JUDICIARY HEARING

peters220929When Colette Peters was sworn in last month as BOP director, her honeymoon with Sen Richard Durbin (D-IL), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, lasted all of three days.

Durbin’s dislike of prior Director Michael Carvajal was well known, and publicly, the Senator was elated at Peters’ appointment. But when Durbin learned the BOP had given Carvajal a 30-day consulting contract to assist the new director with the transition, he was much less enthused.

At the time, Durbin threatened to hold another oversight hearing on the BOP. He is about to make good on that threat.

The Judiciary Committee will conduct a BOP oversight hearing today. Peters is the primary witness, but other witnesses include Shane Fausey, President of the Council of Prison Locals national union; John Wetzel, a prison consultant and former head of the Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections; and Cecilia Cardenas of Davenport, Iowa.

It is not clear who Ms. Cardenas is, but a person of that name and from that area was released by the BOP last January.

understaffed220929

Fausey is probably on the witness list because of his outspoken criticism of BOP staffing levels. Fausey told a reporter last week that much of the BOP staffing decline is due to declining morale as general environmental conditions are declining. He said BOP staff is “exhausted” as mandatory overtime has “skyrocketed” at high-security institutions across the country.

Last week, BOP employees at FCI Raybrook in upstate New York posted a sign along a highway there saying the federal prison is “dangerously understaffed” and asks the community if it feels safe.

I expect that a major topic of discussion will be the Federal Prison Oversight Act, introduced yesterday by Sens Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Mike Braun (R-IN), and  Durbin. The Federal Prison Oversight Act, according to a Durbin press release, will require the Dept of Justice’s Inspector General to

conduct comprehensive, risk-based inspections of the [BOP’s] 122 facilities to identify problems that affect incarcerated people and staff and to provide recommendations to address them.  It will require the IG to assign each facility a risk score, with higher-risk facilities required to be inspected more often.  Under the bill, the IG must also report its findings and recommendations to Congress and the public, and the BOP must respond to all inspection reports within 60 days with a corrective action plan.

The bill will also establish an Ombudsman within DOJ to investigate issues that adversely affect the health, safety, welfare, or rights of incarcerated people or staff, and who would report dangerous findings directly to the Attorney General and Congress.  The Ombudsman would also be tasked with creating a secure hotline and online form to be made available for family members, friends, and representatives of incarcerated people to submit complaints and inquiries regarding issues within BOP. 

forcedsex161202No doubt Peters will be asked pointed questions about sexual assault of female prisoners. Last week, she issued a statement saying she was “firm in my commitment to work with the BOP team, Department of Justice (DOJ) leadership, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Congress, and others as I begin to assess and address issues and concerns pertaining to the BOP and the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Dublin.”

The former warden and four other FCI Dublin employees face criminal charges for sexually assaulting female inmates.

Peters may as well be asked about the sexual assault scandal at FMC Carswell, the only medical center for women in the BOP system. The Ft Worth Star-Telegram last week reported that a former federal Bureau of Prisons staff member who pleaded guilty to raping two women at a prison in Fort Worth was sentenced to 18 months in prison — half the time one of his victims is serving for drug possession.

Luis Curiel pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual abuse of a ward while he was a lieutenant at Carswell. He was sentenced to concurrent 18 months for each charge. According to court documents, Curiel admitted to meeting three women at separate times near a staff elevator and forcing them into sexual acts.

If the Committee runs short of topics for Director Peters, it may inquire about an Oklahoma City TV report last week that a widow is still seeking answers about her husband’s death at FTC Oklahoma City.

missingcorpse220929Nearly two weeks after Jonathan Patterson Days died suddenly at the FTC, his wife told reporters says she still doesn’t know what happened to him and the facility hasn’t returned his body.

Abbie Alvarado-Patterson said she asked the chaplain, “when do I get his body back? He said, ‘you want his body back?’” She said the BOP chaplain couldn’t give her any additional information about what happened, including a timeline for returning the body

Associated Press, Senate to hold hearing on crisis-plagued federal prisons (August 5, 2022)

Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing Notice (September 29, 2022)

Associated Press, Senators push new oversight to combat federal prison crises (September 28, 2022)

Press Release, Durbin, Ossoff, Braun Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Overhaul Federal Prison Oversight (September 28, 2022)

News Nation, Experts warn prison staff shortage put lives at risk (September 23, 2022)

KTVU-TV, Prison director vows to ‘change the culture’ at FCI Dublin (September 23, 2022)

Ft Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth prison officer gets lighter sentence for assault than victim’s drug sentence (September 20, 2022)

KFOR-TV, ‘This man was loved’: Wife demands answers after husband dies in federal custody (September 21, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Nine Justices Get Back to Work – Update for September 27, 2022

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.

SCOTUS ‘ENDLESS SUMMER’ ENDS

The Supreme Court brings its three-month recess to an end tomorrow, when the Justices will hold the Court’s annual “long conference.”

vacationSCOTUS180924Throughout the year, the Justices meet on a nearly weekly basis to consider pending petitions for certiorari. But that practice ends in late June when the Court breaks for the summer. Then, petitions pile up over the summer.

At the annual “long conference,” held the week before the Court begins its next term, the Justices will typically dispose of about 2,000 pending petitions. A research paper published seven years ago in the Law and Society Review found that the petitions arriving over the summer had a 16% worse chance of being accepted by the Court.

Gregory Garre, Solicitor General during the George W. Bush administration, told The New York Times, “Given the numbers, as counsel, you really have to try your best to avoid the summer list, though sometimes it is unavoidable,” Garre said. “Fortunately, as tough as the odds are, the cream can still rise to the top.”

The Court convenes to begin October Term 2022 (the name of the nine-month term ending June 30, 2023) next Monday.

49 Law and Society Review, Seasonal Affective Disorder: Clerk Training and the Success of Supreme Court Certiorari Petitions (August 27, 2015)

New York Times, Supreme Court’s End-of-Summer Conference: Where Appeals ‘Go to Die’ (August 31, 2015)

– Thomas L. Root

District Court Decision Questions Everything in 18 USC § 922 – Update for September 26, 2022

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.

BEGINNING OF THE END FOR 18 USC 922?

Notguns170330A remarkable district court decision from Western District of Texas last week held that 18 USC § 922(n), a subsection that prohibits people who are under indictment  from possessing guns or ammunition that have traveled in interstate commerce, is unconstitutional.

District Judge David Counts dismissed an 18 USC § 922(n) charge against Jose Quiroz, who was facing a Texas burglary indictment when he tried to buy a .22-caliber version of the Colt Model 1911 handgun.

In a 25-page opinion filed in Pecos, Texas, Counts ruled that in the wake of the Supreme Court’s June decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, despite “valid public policy and safety concerns,” the statute had to be considered under a historical analysis alone. He held that “[a]lthough not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922(n) — which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm — aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional.”

gun160711The Court said that the “Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right.’ No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right. After Bruen, the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition.”

What makes the decision interesting is not just the detailed historical analysis that argues against the constitutionality of § 992(n). In addition, the decision casts substantial doubt on whether 18 USC § 922(g) – which prohibits people convicted of felonies from possessing guns or ammo – is still constitutional in light of Bruen.

Bruen held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government… must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms….”

manyguns190423Judge Counts reviewed the history of laws prohibiting felons from possessing guns: “By the mid-1920s, only six states had laws banning concealed carry by someone convicted of a crime involving a concealed weapon. And zero states banned possession of long guns based on a prior conviction… Whether this Nation has a history of disarming felons is arguably unclear—it certainly isn’t clearly “longstanding.” And what’s even more unclear—and still unproven—is a historical justification for disarming those indicted, but not yet convicted, of any crime.”

The Quiroz opinion is only a district court holding and is not binding precedent on other courts (even in its home 5th Circuit). However, the decision is written with detail that is extraordinary for a district court case and may have a lot of persuasive authority for other district courts (and even courts of appeal). The case also suggests that Bruen, only three months old, could have a major effect on 18 USC § 922.

Even before Bruen, Supreme Court Justice Amy Barrett – when she was still on the 7th Circuit – argued in her dissent in Kanter v. Barr that the felon-in-possession statute could not constitutionally applied to people with nonviolent felony convictions:

History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons… In 1791 — and for well more than a century afterward — legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.

Anyone filing direct appeals or post-conviction motions in cases where they were convicted of 18 USC § 922 offenses should seriously consider raising a constitutionality issue in light of Bruen.

United States v. Quiroz, Case No 22-cr-00104, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168329 (W.D.Tex., September 19, 2022)

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022)

Associated Press, Judge holds gun ban for felony defendants unconstitutional (September 19, 2022)

Sentencing Law and Policy, District Court declares § 922(n), which criminalizes a person under indictment from receiving a firearm, to be unconstitutional (September 20, 2022)

Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir., 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Compassionate Release Numbers: Data Without Benefits – Update for September 23, 2022

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.

NUMBED BY NUMBERS

numbersThe U.S. Sentencing Commission recently issued an updated report on compassionate release, covering all of the filings since October 1, 2019 (six months before the pandemic began) through last March.

In 30 months, we learn, 25,416 motions were filed, with 16.7% (4,234) granted. Good to know for this weekend’s cocktail-party chatter, but functionally useless.

Most people currently filing 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) sentence reduction motions – inaccurately but generally known as “compassionate release” motions – don’t care about the 30-month average. What courts were doing in the few months prior to the pandemic – or, for that matter, in the early pandemic when COVID raged and everyone was scared – has hardly any relevance to what they are doing today. People want to know what has been happening in the last few months (last March, for example, 13.4% of 479 motions were granted).

We do learn that over the 30 months studied, Eastern District of Texas (2.6%), Southern District of Georgia (2.2%) and Middle District of Georgia (1.7%) were the worst places to get relief. The best places to be remain locations such as California (except the Eastern District) at 35.8%, Kansas at 41.9%, Connecticut at 37.2%, Massachusetts at 44.8% and Oregon at 59%.

Some districts have even better numbers, but the number of motions filed in those jurisdictions is so small as to make the grant/denial percentage in those districts meaningless.

My problem with the data is this: Given the waning pandemic, the position taken by some circuits that inmate vaccination disqualifies the risk of COVID as a basis for compassionate release, and the decision by almost all circuits that USSG § 1B1.13 does not limit the groups that may be raised in an inmate-filed compassionate release motion, how district courts may be acting on compassionate release motions today may bear scant resemblance to what was being done, say, in April 2020. That being the case, it is tough to take away much from a comparison of a judicial district’s grant rate over a 30-month period. A period of six to 12 months would make a lot more sense.

I am surprised by some commentators bemoaning the fact that there are wide disparities among the districts. That’s what happens when federal judges are permitted to exercise almost unbridled discretion. Ohio State law professor Doug Berman, writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, complained that

perhaps most striking data points are the dramatic variations in grant rates from various districts. As but one of many remarkable examples, I must note again the stark disparities in the three districts of Georgia: the Southern District of Georgia granted only 6 out of 272 sentence reduction motions for a 2.2% grant rate; the Middle District of Georgia granted only 4 out of 238 sentence reduction motions for a 1.7% grant rate; but the Northern District of Georgia granted 80 out of 174 sentence reduction motions for a 46% grant rate.

One commenter to Berman’s post responded, “When you tell judges they can do whatever they care to, without any standards that are going to get enforced, this is what you’re going to get. Any resemblance between this and ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ is strictly coincidental.”

Roybean220923CMaybe so, but “standards that are going to get enforced” sounds a lot like the bad old days of mandatory guidelines. You can’t have it both ways. Judges exercising a lot of discretion can take individual factors into account the way that uniform standards applying across all 94 federal districts cannot. On the other hand, standards can limit the baser instincts of the Judge Roy Beans of the federal judiciary.

Perhaps our newly-reconstituted Sentencing Commission can find a happy (pro-defendant) medium.

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Compassionate Release Data Report (Fiscal Years 2020 to 2022)

Sentencing Law and Policy, US Sentencing Commission releases latest “Compassionate Release Data Report” with detailed data through March 2022 (September 12, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Introducing Computer Tablets By Year End – Update for September 22, 2022

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 ROLLING OUT TABLET COMPUTERS BY END OF 2022

A reader last week asked about rumors he had heard about the Federal Bureau of Prisons rolling out Android-based tablets.

BOP Office of Public Affairs spokesman Donald Murphy told me that the BOP “is in the process of migrating to a next-generation media device, the Keefe SCORE 7c. This next-generation media device may be purchased by the incarcerated population through our commissary sales program. Currently, it is anticipated full migration will be complete by the end of the calendar year.”

score7220923The Keefe SCORE 7c is an Android-based tablet with security modifications to the OS for prison use. The Keefe Group says the tablet includes access to will have more than two dozen personal growth and reeentry tutorials, over 51,000 public-domain digital books, free preloaded game, over 7,000 instructional videos in 2,000 categories covering a broad range of common-core subjects and provide a foundation for high school equivalency testing, free FM radio and access to music purchase or subscription plans, and access to over 200 movies for rental.

Keefe says users will be able to communicate with family and friends using fee-based text, photo and videogram messaging.

keefegroup.com, SCORE 7c Tablet

– Thomas L. Root

Congress is Back, Criminal Justice Reform Is Not – Update for September 20, 2022

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.

LEGISLATORS GENERATING HEAT BUT NOT LIGHT

Both Houses of Congress are back from summer vacation. Criminal justice reform measures are pending (and may be poised for passage). Except midterm elections are 49 days away, and no one up for re-election is anticipating any traction from being in favor of helping out prisoners.

Anyone who wants to know what the Senate thinks of convicted persons needs look no further than last week’s 47-50 rejection of former Federal Public Defender Arianna J. Freeman as a 3rd Circuit appellate judge. Freeman was criticized by Senate Judiciary Republicans last March, when the Judiciary Committee did not approve her nomination, because of her success in overturning a death row inmate’s sentence. Critics called her a “zealot” for fighting capital punishment.

Freeman said that her office represented the man “as was our duty… Ultimately, Mr. Williams actually prevailed both in the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the Pennsylvania courts because of unlawfulness that took place during the course of his conviction. My colleagues and I pursued those available arguments under the law and we did prevail.”

Winning cases matters to the Senate – unless you represent criminal defendants. To the Senate, her success was her failing.

dema160222Nothing is easier to demagogue than being tough on crime.

The two criminal justice reform measures most likely to pass are the EQUAL Act (S.79) and the MORE Act (HR 3617). Last week, the Washington Post expressed pessimism over whether the EQUAL Act – which would equalize sentences for crack and powder cocaine – could pass. “The measure has stalled over concerns that Republicans could push for divisive amendments,” the Post said. “As the Senate juggles a number of measures ahead of November’s midterm elections, advocates worry that the window for action is closing. Democrats should continue to push for the Equal Act — but also be open to compromise if necessary. A possible middle ground might involve a 2.5-to-1 ratio, achieved entirely by increasing the quantities of crack that trigger mandatory minimums. This ratio could be further reduced or brought to parity in the future, and a deal could be supplemented with funding for research on the addictiveness and deadliness of these substances, as Mr. Grassley has pushed for.”

marijuana-dc211104

Meanwhile, the cannabis industry is lobbying hard for marijuana reform “before midterm elections that could reshape the political landscape on Capitol Hill,” according to a Canadian newspaper:

In April, the House passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE Act), which would effectively remove cannabis from the U.S. list of controlled substances and provide sentence relief to people serving marijuana sentence.

The MORE Act’s prospects in the Senate are less certain. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the most powerful Democrat in the upper chamber, has already introduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act. The CAOA also includes criminal sentence reform, but contains provisions regulating the cannabis industry that are much different than MORE.

What may happen is that the SAFE Banking Act, a more incremental step that does not include sentence reform but one with more bipartisan support in Congress than either MORE or CAOA, may be substituted. “We know right now, if SAFE were to come up, it would be a 65 to 70 vote,” an industry spokesman says. “We know the votes are there for SAFE, so our focus is on getting SAFE over the finish line.”

Good news for the industry, but bad news for marijuana defendants.

The Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (S.601) has gone nowhere in the Senate since being passed out of the Judiciary Committee in June 2021. But supporters may get what they want from an unexpected quarter.

hammer160509In Shaw v. United States, the Supreme Court has been asked to hear a case where the district court used conduct of which the defendant was acquitted to increase his sentence (although still within the statutory maximum). The Supremes have not yet ruled on the petition for certiorari, but the petition has collected amicus briefs urging its grant from the conservative Cato Institute to the liberal Americans for Prosperity, as well as from Prof. Doug Berman and The National Association of Federal Defenders.

Last week, a Bloomberg Law opinion piece argued for the Court to hear it:

Taking up the issue of acquitted conduct sentencing this next term will give the court another opportunity to tackle a criminal justice issue that unites people from across the spectrum… At least three current justices have questioned or called for an end to this unjust practice… There is reason to hope other members of the court would also agree acquitted conduct sentencing is unconstitutional given their professional backgrounds and experience on the front lines working in the criminal justice system.”

Washington Times, Biden judicial nominee loses Senate confirmation vote (September 13, 2022)

Washington Post, The powder vs. crack cocaine disparity still exists, and it’s still unfair (September 15, 2022)

Chronicle-Journal, As midterms approach, Capitol Hill lawmakers push banking reforms for legal cannabis (September 15, 2022)

Shaw v. United States, Case No 22-118 (petition for cert pending)

Bloomberg, US Supreme Court Should Tackle Acquitted Conduct Sentencing (September 14, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Circuit Split Deepens on Using Sentence Law Changes in Compassionate Release Motions – Update for September 19, 2022

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.

9TH CIRCUIT ALLOWS FIRST STEP CHANGE IN § 924(c) STACKING TO SUPPORT COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

In 2007, Howard Chen was busted with a distribution-sized amount of MDMA in his car. Later, the DEA found more MDMA, two guns and cash at his house.

mdma220919A jury convicted Howie of six drug-related counts and two 18 USC § 924(c) counts for possessing a gun during and in furtherance of a drug crime. He got 48 months for the drug counts, 60 more months for the first gun offense and 300 months for the second one: a total of 34 years for a fairly garden-variety non-violent drug case.

In late 2020, Howard filed a motion for sentence reduction, seeking compassionate release for – among other reasons – that the First Step Act changed 18 USC § 924(c) so that he would not have to get a minimum of 300 months for the second gun charge. Although the change was not retroactive, Howie contended that the unfairness of how the 2007 version of the statute mandated 300 months but the current statute did not was an extraordinary and compelling reason for granting him a sentence reduction.

The district court denied the compassionate release motion, holding that because Congress did not make the 18 USC § 924(c) change retroactive, it could not be an extraordinary and compelling reason for grant of compassionate release under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Last week, the 9th Circuit reversed, holding that a district court may consider the First Step Act’s non-retroactive changes to sentencing law – in combination with other factors particular to the individual – when finding extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction.

circuitsplit220919Bloomberg said, “The opinion deepens a circuit split on the bipartisan 2018 reform law that has generated much litigation since then-President Donald Trump signed it.”

The 3rd, 7th, and 8th Circuits have ruled that district courts may not consider non-retroactive sentence changes made by First Step, whether offered alone or in combination with other factors, in deciding compassionate release motions. Those circuits reasoned that Congress explicitly made the sentencing changes non-retroactive and that § 3582(c)(1)(A) “should not provide a loophole to get around explicit non-retroactivity.”

For instance, the 3rd Circuit ruled, “We will not construe Congress’s nonretroactivity directive as simultaneously creating an extraordinary and compelling reason for early release.” The 7th held that “the discretionary authority conferred by § 3582(c)(1)(A)… cannot be used to effect a sentencing reduction at odds with Congress’s express determination embodied in… the First Step Act that the amendment to § 924(c)’s sentencing structure appl[ies] only prospectively.” The 8th said, “The compassionate release statute is not a freewheeling opportunity for resentencing based on prospective changes in sentencing policy or philosophy.”

The 3rd and 7th Circuits still allow district courts hearing compassionate release motions to consider First Step’s changes to stacked § 924(c) sentencing when analyzing § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

dontthink220919The 1st, 4rth, and 10th Circuits, on the other hand, have all held that district courts may consider First Step’s non-retroactive changes to penalty provisions, in combination with other factors, when determining whether extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release exist in a particular case. The Circuits have held that the statutes directly addressing “extraordinary and compelling reasons” don’t prohibit district courts from considering non-retroactive changes in sentencing law; and (2) a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s “extraordinary and compelling reasons” is “entirely different from automatic eligibility for resentencing as a result of a retroactive change in sentencing law.”

The 6th Circuit swings both ways. In United States v. Jarvis, the Circuit held that the “district court, moreover, correctly concluded that it lacked the authority to reduce Jarvis’s sentence based on a nonretroactive change in the law.” But in United States v. Owens, the panel said that the disparity between a defendant’s actual sentence and the sentence that he would receive if the First Step Act applied can be considered, along with other factors, to be an extraordinary and compelling reason for a reduction.

In Howard’s case, the 9th said,

Congress has only placed two limitations directly on extraordinary and compelling reasons: the requirement that district courts are bound by the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement, which does not apply here, and the requirement that ‘rehabilitation alone’ is not extraordinary and compelling. Neither of these rules prohibits district courts from considering rehabilitation in combination with other factors. Indeed, Congress has never acted to wholly exclude the consideration of any one factor, but instead affords district courts the discretion to consider a combination of “any” factors particular to the case at hand… To hold that district courts cannot consider nonretroactive changes in sentencing law would be to create a categorical bar against a particular factor, which Congress itself has not done.

United States v. Chen, Case No 20-50333 (9th Cir., September 14, 2022)

Bloomberg, Compassionate Release Gets Another Look Under First Step Act (September 14, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Restitution – A Foretaste of Eternity? – Update for September 16, 2022

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.

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER… RESTITUTION JUST SEEMS LIKE IT

The 3rd Circuit last week reminded defendants sentenced in the last 25 years (since 1996), that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act places a very relaxed limitation on how long the Feds can chase them for money.

restitution170508Michael Norwood successfully argued that his liability for bank robbery restitution arose before the MVRA was passed in 1996. In ruling in his favor, the Circuit noted that the MVRA provides that a defendant’s “liability to pay a fine shall terminate the later of 20 years from the entry of judgment or 20 years after the release from imprisonment of the person fined.” 18 U.S.C. 3613(b). The lien on a defendant’s assets persists as long as he or she is liable to pay.

In short, the 3rd reminded readers, “under the MVRA, a restitution lien never becomes unenforceable, and a defendant’s liability to pay expires not twenty years after entry of the defendant’s judgment, but twenty years after the defendant’s release from imprisonment.”

United States v. Norwood, Case No. 20-3478, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25181 (3rd Cir., September 8, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root