All posts by lisa-legalinfo

“What We Have Here…” – Update for October 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.

… IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE


failuretocommunicate221027We Should Have Told You It Would Be On the Test: If email is any indication, not only did Federal prisoners receive First Step Act earned-time credits applied well after the credits were promised, but what was delivered was well short of what was reasonably anticipated.

Writing in Forbes last week, Walter Pavlo reported that although BOP Director Colette Peters told the Senate Judiciary Committee during her September 28 testimony that the agency’s new “auto-calc” program was already up and running, “it was not until the week of October 3rd that FSA credits started to be applied. As one prisoner told me, ‘I was expecting a year of credits and I got 4 months. I have no idea what happened’.”

Pavlo said that “what happened is that the calculator still has errors in it. Prisoners who were transferred to a halfway house after receiving an interim calculation of their sentence, were called in and told they would be returning to prison after the new calculation took away their year.”

Pavlo wrote, “One of the main factors that seems to be causing issues is that federal prisoners were told to complete a needs assessment survey when they first entered prison. The survey was part of the FSA in that it was meant to provide an assessment of the types of programs, needs, that the prisoner would address while in prison. The assessment was to be done on-line through an internal computer terminal that prisoners use for email communications with their families… What prisoners were not told was that the survey’s completion was a requirement to initiating the FSA credits. All of the prisoners I spoke to stated that they were never told of the survey’s importance nor could I find information about this in the FSA nor in any directive given to prisoners.”

Pavlo’s report is consistent with email complaints I have gotten from prisoners that no one ever suggested that the needs surveys served any necessary purpose.

Pavlo quoted Emery Nelson of the BOP is quoted as saying, “Completion of the self-assessment survey is only one factor which determines when an inmate begins earning FSA time credits.”

We’re Not Listening to You: The DOJ Office of Inspector General told BOP Director Colette Peters two weeks ago about an aspect of its recent investigation into sexual abuse of inmates by BOP employees that it found troubling.

dontbelieve221027“These concerns arose when the OIG recently inquired of the BOP’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA)… about a disciplinary action taken by the BOP following an OIG investigation of alleged sexual abuse by a BOP employee. In response to our inquiry, we were told by OIA that, in cases that have not been accepted for criminal prosecution, the BOP will not rely on inmate testimony to make administrative misconduct findings and take disciplinary action against BOP employees, unless there is evidence aside from inmate testimony that independently establishes the misconduct…”

OIG told Director Peters that BOP’s refusal to rely on inmate testimony to make misconduct findings in administrative matters “is inconsistent with the fact that such testimony is fully admissible in criminal and civil cases, and creates significant risks for the BOP in its handling of administrative misconduct matters. Inmate testimony alone has been found sufficient, and with corroborating evidence is often found sufficient, to support criminal convictions of BOP employees, where the evidentiary standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In short, inmates are not disqualified from providing testimony with evidentiary value in federal courts, and there is no valid reason for the BOP to decline to rely on such testimony… where the evidentiary standard is the preponderance of the evidence. In addition, the OIG found that in the context of sexual misconduct cases, BOP policy and federal regulations, specifically those DOJ regulations implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), require the credibility of an alleged victim to be assessed on an individual basis and not be determined by the person’s status as an inmate.”

After the OIG provided the Bureau of Prisons with a draft of its report, BOP quickly denied that it had ever said it didn’t believe inmates as a matter of policy.  The Inspector General was unimpressed:

However, contrary to this assertion, the statements made by the OIA to the OIG as reflected in this memorandum were made by OIA on multiple occasions. Moreover, as described later in this memorandum, we found that in cases where the OIG substantiated BOP employee misconduct relying on inmate testimony the OIA has, on more than one occasion, sent less serious findings to the BOP’s Employment Law Branch (ELB) and the BOP institution where the subject employee works.

So now who doesn’t believe whom?

Forbes, Bureau Of Prisons’ Failure To Communicate First Step Act (October 15, 2022)

DOJ Office of Inspector General, Notification of Concerns Regarding the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Treatment of Inmate Statements in Investigations of Alleged Misconduct by BOP Employees (October 12, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

D.C. Circuit Creates More “Compassionate Release” Circuit Confusion – Update for October 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.

DC CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT CHANGES IN THE LAW CANNOT SUPPORT COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

circuitsplit220516The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has deepened the circuit split on compassionate release, joining three other circuits in holding that a prisoner cannot use the fact he or she is serving a sentence that could not be imposed today as “extraordinary and compelling” reason for an 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) compassionate release.

In 2016, Curtis Jenkins was caught by D.C. police with drugs and a gun. He got bonded out of jail, but a short time later he was caught by D.C. police again with drugs and a gun. Curtis thus faced two 18 USC § 924(c) counts (for carrying a gun during drug trafficking) and a 15-year Armed Career Criminal Act count (18 USC § 924(e)), not to mention qualifying as a “career offender” under the Sentencing Guidelines (which dramatically jacks up the sentencing range).

Factor all of that into the mix, Curtis was looking at a minimum 45-year sentence. He did the wise thing, agreeing to a plea deal that carried a Guidelines range of 23-27 years. Despite that range – still a substantial chunk of time – The parties agreed to recommend only 12 years to the sentencing judge.

From there, things got even better. Curtis walked out of sentencing with eight years. For the math-challenged among us, good lawyering had cut Curtis’s sentence exposure by about 82%.

It looked like a great deal at the time, but after a few years, Curtis thought it had all turned to dust later.

First, in 2018, the First Step Act changed § 924(c) so that the 25-year add-on sentence required by law for the second § 924(c) violation would only apply if the second offense came after a first conviction. If that had been the law when Curtis was convicted, his 45-year mandatory minimum sentence would have been only 30 years.

May you rest in peace, Betty... stealing America's hearts did not make you ACCA-qualified.
May you rest in peace, Betty… stealing America’s hearts did not make you ACCA-qualified.

Second, things changed for Curtis’s ACCA conviction. If a felon was caught with a gun back when Curtis was nabbed, he or she faced a zero-to-ten-year sentence. But if the defendant had three prior convictions for violent crimes or drug offenses, the sentence was a minimum 15 years. Two of Curtis’s predicate offenses qualifying him for the ACCA were for assault with a weapon. D.C. law at the time permitted conviction for that offense even when the assault was committed “recklessly.” But in 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in Borden v. United States that any crime that could be committed recklessly was not a “crime of violence” for ACCA purposes. If that had been the law when Curtis was convicted, his 30-year mandatory minimum sentence exposure would have dropped to only 10 years.

Third, the Court of Appeals held in United States v. Winstead that drug offenses relied on to qualify someone as a Guidelines career offender could not count when they were mere attempts. Curtis’s drug priors were for attempted drug distribution, meaning that the high sentencing range that applied because he was a Guidelines “career offender” would have been out, too.

Like that, all of the very good reasons Curtis once had for taking a 12-year deal disappeared like Halloween candy on trick-or-treat night. He moved for a sentence reduction, arguing that if he had made a deal based on the sentence exposure he would have faced if he were sentenced today, it would have been a lot lower.

emptybowl221027The district court denied Curtis’s
motion, holding that changes in the law were not the kind of “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for sentence reduction listed in USSG § 1B1.13, the Guidelines policy statement covering compassionate release motions. That statement does not bind the court, the judge ruled, but he nonetheless referred to it for “guidance.”

The district court said the First Step Act, Winstead, and Borden were irrelevant, because the compassionate-release statute does not permit courts to reexamine the lawfulness or fairness of a sentence as originally imposed.

Two weeks ago, the DC Circuit upheld the district court’s denial. “We agree with the 3rd, 7th, and 8th Circuits,” the appellate panel wrote. “To begin, there is nothing remotely extraordinary about statutes applying only prospectively. In fact, there is a strong presumption against statutory retroactivity, which is ‘deeply rooted in our jurisprudence’ and ‘embodies a legal doctrine older than our Republic’… [The Supreme Court has held that] in federal sentencing the ordinary practice is to apply new lower penalties to defendants not yet sentenced, while withholding that change from defendants already sentenced. And what “the Supreme Court views as the ‘ordinary practice’ cannot also be an ‘extraordinary … reason’ to deviate from that practice.”

extraordinary221027But other Circuits – including the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th – do consider such changes to be among the “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for sentence reduction that will drive a compassionate release motion. The Circuit split just exacerbated by Curtis’s D.C. Circuit decision will most likely be fixed not by the Supreme Court but rather by the newly-reconstituted Sentencing Commission.

The Commission, which just announced having received over 8,000 public comments on its announcement of proposed priorities – has its first public meeting set for this coming Friday. The Commission is expected to adopt its priorities for the coming year, the first of which is likely to be to amend § 1B1.13 to bring some predictability to compassionate release cases.

When that happens, § 1B1.13 will again be binding on the courts, and we can expect a little uniformity to be injected into what is now a chaotic compassionate release system.

United States v. Jenkins, Case No. 21-3089, 2022 U.S.App. LEXIS 28198 (D.C. Cir., Oct. 11, 2022)

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Public Meeting, October 28, 2022

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Public Comments on Priorities (October 23, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Nope to Dope Reform? – Update for October 24, 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.

EVERYBODY’S TALKIN’ AT ME…

With mid-term elections – where control of both the House and Senate are in play – upon us, voters across the country can’t escape the deluge of candidates talking about how extreme their opponents are, how inflation, crime and taxes are out of control… In fact, they’re talking at us about everything.

Everything except criminal justice reform. The only mention that incarcerated people have been getting are occasional disingenuous attacks on incumbents who “vot[ed] to send COVID-19 stimulus checks to people who are incarcerated.” No one is talking about changing drug policy, even about the easiest lift, marijuana reform.

http://lisa-legalinfo.com/yawnA recent Brookings Institution study found that 86% of Congressional candidates “either made no mention, staked out an unclear position, or explicitly opposed cannabis reform.” The report concluded that “most candidates for federal office do not see cannabis as an issue prominent enough to discuss, and deep partisan differences still remain among elected officials, even as support for cannabis in the general public has exploded in recent years. And the true motivator for a member of Congress to take or change a position — whether voters hold their feet to the fire over an issue — has not yet become a reality in the vast majority of Congressional races across the United States.”

This does not bode well for the MORE Act – already passed by the House – which must be passed by the Senate before the end of December. Any pending bill not passed by then disappears with the end of the 117th Congress. The 118th Congress begins in January with no bills in the hopper, meaning that measures like the EQUAL Act (S.79) and MORE Act (H.R. 3617) – as well as anything else pending – must start over.

The NAACP’s board of directors approved a resolution last Thursday calling for the “immediate passage” of a marijuana banking bill and expressing support for decriminalizing cannabis. The vice chair of the NAACP Board group is specifically directing the message at Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who has held up House-passed legislation on the issue.

However, while NAACP backs ending marijuana prohibition, it wants Congress to use the bipartisan momentum behind incremental reform and quickly pass the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act, H.R. 1996, which has already cleared the House.

marijuana-dc211104At this point, Biden’s order to federal agencies to review marijuana’s Schedule I status may provide a quicker path to decriminalization. The Dept of Justice and Dept of Health and Human Services have committed to expeditiously carrying out the scientific review, which could result in a recommendation to schedule marijuana at a lower level or remove it altogether, effectively legalizing the plant.

Inimai Chettiar of the Justice Action Network wrote in Newsweek last week that “Congress could classify marijuana as a much lower scheduled drug, effectively reducing criminal penalties. Better yet, it could decriminalize marijuana and leave the issue to the states. Both steps have strong bipartisan support among lawmakers and voters alike.”

notime160915Unfortunately, translating public support into Senate action – even on EQUAL and MORE – in the brief period between mid-term elections and the end of the year is a tall order. And if the next Congress has one or both Houses controlled by Republicans, you can pretty much write off Congressional cooperation with a Democrat in the White House.

NPR, Politifact VA: Spanberger voted to send COVID checks to prisoners. So did Republicans (October 17, 2022)

JDSupra, Cannabis & the Mid-Terms: What Tax Policy? (October 18, 2022)

The Marshall Project, Don’t Expect Mass Prison Releases From Biden’s Marijuana Clemency (October 15, 2022)

Marijuana Moment, NAACP Calls For ‘Immediate Passage’ Of Marijuana Banking Bill And Pushes For Legalization In New Resolution (October 21, 2022)

Marijuana Moment, Congressional Researchers Lay Out Marijuana Options For Lawmakers Following Biden’s Scheduling Directive (October 20, 2022)

Newsweek, Biden’s Marijuana Executive Order Is a Big Step, But There’s Much More to Do | Opinion (October 21, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

COVID Winter Surge: Will It Happen? – Update for October 21, 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.

COVID’S IS NOT GOING AWAY

covidneverend220627COVID is such old news. President Biden says the pandemic’s over. The Bureau of Prisons’ notoriously unreliable numbers say that as of last Friday, only 160 inmates and 367 staff have the virus (although it’s present in 73% of BOP facilities). Nationally, confirmed cases are down 25% in the last two weeks.

Except… In the UK, infections from highly mutated subvariant BQ.1.1 are doubling every week — a rate of growth that far exceeds other leading subvariants. In the U.S., BQ.1.1 is spreading twice as fast as its cousin subvariant BA.2.75.2. In fact, BQ.1.1 seems to be the first form of COVID against which antibody therapies don’t work at all.

What’s more, last week a new subvariant called XBB began spreading in Singapore. New COVID-19 cases there more than doubled in a day, from 4,700 on Monday to 11,700 last Tuesday. The same subvariant just appeared in Hong Kong, too.

XBB is a highly mutated descendant of the Omicron variant that drove a record wave of infections last winter (including almost 10,000 BOP cases at one time). XBB is more contagious than any previous variant and, like BQ.1.1, evades the antibodies from monoclonal therapies. It is unclear whether the newest batch of bivalent booster shots will work against the XBB variant.

The Washington Post reports, “This time, it’s unlikely we will be barraged with a new collection of Greek alphabet variants. Instead, one or more of the multiple versions of the omicron variant that keep popping up could drive the next wave. They are different flavors of omicron, but eerily alike — adorned with a similar combination of mutations. Each new subvariant seems to outdo the last in its ability to dodge immune defenses.”

inmateCOVIDrights220124A report published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that the subvariant, called BA.4.6, could drive reinfections. “It’s astonishing to see how the virus keeps mutating at such a rapid rate,” said study author Dr. Dan Barouch, director of the Center for Virology and Vaccine Research at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “This is essentially viral evolution on steroids.”

“This suggests that omicron continues to evolve and continues to evolve in a way that becomes more transmissible and more effective at escaping vaccines and immune responses,” he said. “The results are actually a harbinger to new variants that might be even more worrisome.”

Two new COVID-19 variants that quietly emerged on the scene over the last few weeks — ones that Dr. Anthony Fauci has described as “pretty troublesome” — are becoming increasingly prevalent in the New York area and stoking fresh concerns as the nation braces for yet another potential winter surge, the latest CDC data show.

The CDC estimates that variants B.Q.1 and B.Q.1.1 now could account for up to 36.6% of New York area cases, which is nearly double the highest-range estimate at the national level.

prisoners221021These reasons may be why the Dept of Health and Human Services renewed the COVID-19 public health emergency last Thursday for another 90 days at least. This is not the emergency under the National Emergencies Act that authorizes CARES Act home confinement, which currently ends on February 28, 2023 (although experts believe that the NEA emergency will be extended, like it has been twice before). According to Government Executive, “[F]ederal public health officials are bracing for a possible winter surge in COVID-19 cases and a few weeks after President Biden said in a “60 Minutes interview “the pandemic is over.”

This suggests that CARES Act home confinement, compassionate release grants, and – unfortunately – lockdowns due to COVID may not be over yet.

Today, Omicron subvariants reflect a ‘viral evolution on steroids’ (October 19, 2022)

Washington Post, XBB, BQ.1.1, BA.2.75.2 — a variant swarm could fuel a winter surge (October 18, 2022)

National Geographic, Coronavirus in the U.S.: Where cases are growing and declining (October 15, 2022)

Daily Beast, This Deadly COVID Twist Is Like Nothing We’ve Seen Before (October 11, 2022)

Bloomberg, World Faces New Threats From Fast-Mutating Omicron Variants (October 12, 2022)

NJ.com, XBB variant: What is known so far about the newest COVID variant (October 13, 2022)

Government Executive, Coronavirus Roundup: The Biden Administration Renews the Public Health Emergency for COVID-19 (October 14, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Sentence Reduction Decisions Can’t ‘Phone It In’ – Update for October 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.

COMPASSIONATE RELEASE AND SEC 404 DENIALS CANNOT BE ROTE

Since prisoners have been permitted to file motions for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) – generally known as “compassionate release” – and motions for application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 under § 404 of the First Step Act, we have seen district court denials that seemed pretty summary and “cookie cutter.”

cookiecutter221020To be sure, courts have had to deal with thousands of such motions, and undoubtedly the judges detail review and preparation to their junior-most clerks. But I am reminded of a surgical procedure I had a few years ago. The surgeon dismissed my concerns with a breezy “don’t worry – yours will be my 1,500th one of these.” I responded, “Maybe so, but will be my first.”

Compassionate release and § 404 motions are like that. Joe Prisoner’s motion may be the hundredth one the court has decided, but for Joe, it’s his first.

Decisions from the 4th and 7th Circuit a week ago delivered a stark reminder to district judges that denials of such motions should give due consideration to the movant’s arguments and evidence – not necessarily to accept them –but at least to note what the prisoner said and to explain why that argument is insufficient to carry the day.

Jon Singleton, having done 14 years already for a meth conspiracy, sought compassionate release because of COVID. Jon’s district court found that he had not shown an extraordinary and compelling reason for release because he had twice refused the vaccine. The thinking is that anyone who refuses the vaccine can hardly be sincerely worried about the effects of COVID-19.  If that weren’t enough, the district court said, the seriousness of Jon’s offense one and a half decades ago made the original sentence correct.

On appeal Jon complained said the district court had it wrong. He had refused the vaccine only once, and that time he did so only because he had a history of allergic reactions to vaccines and “was denied the ability to consult with a medical professional prior to vaccination.”

mywayor221020This was hardly a novel complaint: Dr. Homer Venters, a court-appointed epidemiologist who inspected FCI Lompoc for an ACLU class-action lawsuit against the BOP over COVID, lambasted the BOP over a year ago for the agency’s “take it or take a hike” approach to administering the COVID vax. Venters told the Central District of California District Court that he was “extremely concerned” about low inmate vaccinating rates, which he attributed to prison staff not addressing inmates’ “very valid and predictable concerns” about the effects the vaccine might have on their underlying health conditions. Rather than address inmate questions, Venters testified, prison staff dismissively told the inmates to either “take the vaccine or sign a refusal form.”

Two weeks ago, the 4th Circuit sided with Jon. “Initially,” the Court said, “the district court erroneously stated that Singleton refused the vaccine twice; the record reveals that he refused the vaccine only once. Moreover, the district court failed to consider Singleton’s argument that he refused the vaccine because he had a history of a severe allergic reaction to the influenza vaccine and other medications and was denied the ability to consult with a medical professional prior to vaccination. Because the district court made a factual error and failed to consider Singleton’s individual circumstances, we conclude that the court abused its discretion…”

Jon also complained the district court failed to consider (1) his rehabilitation evidence; (2) his argument that a “time served” would constitute just punishment; (3) his low recidivism score; and (4) that due to a change in state law, one of his prior drug felonies was reduced to a misdemeanor, which would have reduced his criminal history category. The Circuit agreed: “Given the amount of time Singleton spent in prison before filing his motion and the fact that the district court did not acknowledge any of his many arguments that relied on post-sentencing conduct and circumstances, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in considering the § 3553 factors.”

Jamell Newbern was convicted of crack distribution in 2005. Because he had two qualifying prior convictions, he was sentenced as a Guidelines career offender. At the time, the district judge said he would have sentenced Jamell to the same term even if he had not been a career offender.

denied190109The District Judge had long since retired. Since 2005, one of Jamell’s two prior convictions (reckless discharge of a firearm) was held to not be a crime of violence. But the new judge on Jamell’s case reimposed the original 300-month sentence, adopting the retired judge’s position that 300 months was warranted whether or not Jamellwas a career offender or not. The new judge did not even address Jamell’s post-sentencing record.

Last week, the 7th Circuit agreed that the new judge’s adoption of the prior judge’s determination that Jamell’s conduct warranted a 300-month sentence regardless of his status as a career offender.

“But,” the 7th said, “we see things differently when it comes to the district court’s failure to respond to Newburn’s argument for relief based on his good behavior in prison. Concepcion expressly established that conduct in prison—good or bad—can be properly considered in a First Step Act motion. Newburn meaningfully emphasized his positive record in his motion. By no means was Newman making a throwaway point. To the contrary, he devoted about a full page of his motion to highlighting his clean disciplinary record, employment in prison, completion of a drug-education course, and earning a GED. Concepcion v. United States does not require a detailed explanation in response to these considerations, but we cannot be sure that the district court considered Newburn’s arguments when it provided no explanation at all.”

The Circuit said that in light of Concepcion, “it is clear that the district court’s failure to address Newburn’s good-conduct argument rises to the level of procedural error.”

United States v. Singleton, Case No 21-6798, 2022 U.S.App. LEXIS 27943 (4th Cir., Oct. 6, 2022)

Santa Barbara Independent, Doctor ‘Extremely Concerned’ About Low Vaccination Rate Among Lompoc Prisoners (May 20, 2021)

United States v. Newbern, Case No. 22-1244, 2022 U.S.App. LEXIS 28348 (7th Cir., Oct. 12, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Courts Chipping Away at Gun Statute in Wake of Bruen – Update for October 18, 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.

ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER ATTACK ON 18 USC § 922

iloveguns221018I reported a few weeks ago on a Western District of Texas ruling holding that the ban on people under indictment having guns or ammo (18 USC § 922(n)) was unconstitutional in the wake of last June’s Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v Bruen. Last week, a Southern District of West Virginia district court joined the fracas, holding that 18 USC 922(k) – which prohibits possession of guns with obliterated serial numbers – “implicate conduct that is protected by the Second Amendment… [making] the statute is presumptively unconstitutional” under Bruen.

The West Virginia defendant was caught with a gun that had serial numbers filed off. He was charged with being a felon-in-possession under 18 USC § 922(g)(1) and with violating § 922(k). The district court held that the felon-in-possession statute was constitutional, but that § 922(k) was not. The government could not show that the obliterated serial number statute was “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

gunserialfiled221018Firearms were not required to carry serial numbers until the Gun Control Act of 1968. The “societal problem[s]” addressed by § 922(k) appear to be crime, the Court wrote, “including crime involving stolen firearms, and assisting law enforcement in solving crime. It is difficult to imagine that this societal problem did not exist at the founding. While firearms then were not the same as firearms today, there certainly were gun crimes that might have been more easily investigated if firearms had to be identifiable by a serial number or other mark. The Government has presented no evidence, and the court is not aware of any, that any such requirement existed in 1791.”manyguns190423

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, said that “the rejection of Bruen-based attacks on felon-in-possession prohibition is already become quite common. As the Price opinion notes “Relying on the same [‘law-abiding’] dicta in the wake of Bruen, at least nine federal district courts have rejected constitutional challenges to Section 922(g)(1)… [But] based on my first quick read of this opinion, I am not sure I am wholly convinced by the analysis driving either part of the ruling.”

United States v. Price, Case No 2:22-cr-00097, 2022 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 186571 (S.D.W.Va., Oct. 12, 2022)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Notable new district court opinion strikes down federal serial number law but upholds felon possession ban applying Bruen (October 13, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Has the BOP Just Had Its ‘George Floyd’ Moment? – Update for October 17, 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 MISTREATMENT OF DYING INMATE DYING OF CANCER SPARKS OUTRAGE

The murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chavin captured the nation’s attention and fury like no event in the recent history of policing and race. With an angry opinion from U.S. District Judge Roy Dalton (Middle District of Florida), the late Frederick Mervin Bardell’s tragic mistreatment may do the same for the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Fred was housed at FCI Seagoville, finishing a 151-month sentence for possession of child pornography, when he developed an intestinal mass that turned into metastatic colon cancer.  As Judge Dalton put it, “Frederick Marvin Bardell was a convicted child pornographer. He was also a human being.”

In November 2020, Fred filed a motion for compassionate release, complaining that he suffered from “unspecified bleeding,” “metastatic liver lesions (suspected cancer),” and “malignancy in his colon.” His medical expert averred that Fred “ha[d] a high likelihood of having cancer of the colon with likely metastasis to the liver.”

medical told you I was sick221017The BOP admitted that Fred has “liver lesions highly suspicious for metastatic disease” but argued that “to date, no one has determined that [his] condition is terminal.” The Government also maintained that there was no indication that Fred could not receive adequate care in custody. Based on the Government’s assurance, the Court denied his November compassionate release motion.

You have to love the construction of the argument. It is not that the BOP is saying it CAN and WILL provide Fred with adequate medical care. Instead, it’s just that Fred can’t prove the BOP is unable to do so. But, as Judge Dalton wrote just two weeks ago, “As we now know, it was not true that Mr. Bardell could receive adequate care in custody, and, regrettably, his condition was indeed terminal.”

Fred filed a second compassionate release motion in February 2021, three months later. The Court granted this motion, which was supported by an affidavit from an oncologist that Fred was likely dying of metastatic colon cancer. The Court ordered Fred released as soon as the Probation Office and Fred’s attorney worked out a release plan appropriate for someone in Fred’s condition.

The BOP didn’t wait for any release plan. In fact, the BOP staff at Seagoville didn’t read the details in the release order at all. Instead, the BOP contacted Fred’s parents and demanded that they fork over $500 for a plane ticket for Fred. As soon as they did, Seagoville sent its inmate driver – who said he was told not to get out of the car – to Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, where Fred – who was “skin and bones, wheelchair dependent, and bladder and bowel incontinent” – was unceremoniously dumped on the curb without help or even a wheelchair.

With the aid of strangers, Fred was able to get loaded into a wheelchair, get on the plane, suffer through a change of planes in Atlanta, and finally arrive in Jacksonville. Fred, “who had a tumor protruding from his stomach and was visibly weak and bleeding, unsurprisingly soiled himself during this not so bon voyage,” the judge wrote.

bardell221017Fred’s lawyer and parents met him at the airport. Fred’s father had to take off his shirt and place it under his son to keep the blood and feces off the car seat. They took Fred directly to a hospital, where he died nine days later. His specialist said that if he had gotten prompt treatment when was first found, he would have had a 71% chance of recovery.

Two weeks ago, Judge Roy Dalton held the BOP in civil contempt for ignoring his release order. The judge was clearly frustrated that he could not do more. In what Reason called “a scathing opinion,” the Judge expressed dismay that “while the sanctions imposed are remedial in nature and restricted by law, the Court admonishes the BOP and [FCI Seagoville] Warden Zook for their blatant violation of a Court Order and sheer disregard for human dignity.” Judge Dalton wrote, “The BOP as an institution and Warden Zook as an individual should be deeply ashamed of the circumstances surrounding the last stages of Mr. Bardell’s incarceration and indeed his life. No individual who is incarcerated by order of the Court should be stripped of his right to simple human dignity as a consequence.”

investigate170724The Court recommended that the Attorney General investigate “the circumstances of Mr. Bardell’s confinement and treatment, the failure of the BOP to respond to his medical needs, and the BOP’s misrepresentations in connection with the compassionate release briefing regarding the seriousness of his condition,” the opinion states. “On a parallel track, the Court retains jurisdiction to continue investigating the circumstances surrounding the truthfulness of the assertions in the Government’s filings as well as Mr. Bardell’s incarceration and release.”

The Judge’s October 4 opinion appears to have gained national attention through an article in Reason, which also published accounts several years ago about three deaths from alleged medical neglect at FCI Aliceville.  At the time, Reason noted

The Bureau of Prisons listed the cause of death in all three cases as “natural causes,” according to public records obtained by Reason. That classification, while technically correct, erases the culpability of the agency. It’s like claiming a man accidentally drowned after you refused to throw him a life preserver.

But the agency doesn’t want to talk about what happened. When asked for more information, the BOP public affairs office said the agency “does not disclose the details of an inmate’s death.” The FCI Aliceville public information officer did not return multiple requests for comment. Reason has been waiting for more than a year for additional Freedom of Information Act records concerning these incidents.

sorry190124But in Fred’s case, the BOP’s response was different. BOP Director Colette Peters released a statement offering her condolences to the Bardell family but declining to comment on the specifics of the case because it was the subject of continuing litigation. She promised to cooperate with any investigations into the matter. “My heart goes out to Mr. Bardell’s family, to whom I send my deepest condolences,” Ms. Peters (who was not Director when Mr. Bardell’s mistreatment occurred) said. “Humane treatment of the men and women in Bureau of Prisons custody is a paramount priority. In instances where we have failed at upholding our mission, we are taking steps to find out what happened, how it happened, and how we can prevent it from happening in the future.”

Meanwhile, official attention is being paid to the matter. Senate Judiciary Chairman Richard J. Durbin (D-IL) wrote on Twitter that “the details unveiled in this case are appalling, and may not be isolated.” He called on the Justice Department’s inspector general “to investigate B.O.P.’s treatment of medically vulnerable individuals both while incarcerated and upon their release.”

On Friday, the Justice Department inspector general’s office announced it was opening an investigation into the case.

United States v. Bardell, Case No 6:11-cr-401, 2022 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 181785 (M.D. Fla., October 4, 2022)

Reason, Judge Holds Federal Bureau of Prisons in Contempt for Allowing Man To Waste Away From Untreated Cancer (October 10, 2022)

Washington Post, Judge blasts Bureau of Prisons’ treatment of dying prisoner (October 14, 2022)

New York Times, Judge Holds Prison Officials in Contempt for Treatment of Terminally Ill Inmate (October 13, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Clock Running Out on Drug Reform – Update for October 14, 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.

EXPERTS PESSIMISTIC ABOUT MORE ACT, EQUAL ACT

clock160620Even as a record 68% of the country favors marijuana legalization, according to a recent Gallup poll, a cannabis industry reporter last week said passage of the MORE Act or something else that decriminalizes marijuana is a long way off. “Five experts on politics in the weed industry I spoke with mostly agreed,” Sean Teehan wrote, saying the largest hurdles are a gridlocked Congress, a lack of political incentives for lawmakers to support legislation – or significant pro-cannabis reform – and an absence of consensus on what legislation should look like in practice.”

According to John Hudak, deputy director of the Center for Effective Public Management and the senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, the main reason legislation is extremely unlikely to pass in the current congressional session ending on Jan 6, 2023, is that the issue simply doesn’t have enough support in the Senate.

“The votes just aren’t there – they’re barely there in the House. Democrats don’t even have the 50 votes in the Senate for it, and they need 60,” Hudak said.

The situation doesn’t look brighter following the November elections, said Jay Wright, a partner at an Alabama law firm and editor of the National Law Review. “I think if you see Republicans take the House in this upcoming midterm I think it’s going to be a gridlocked government and I don’t know if this is going to be the kind of issue that’s going to be on the front burner,” Wright said.

The EQUAL Act has been attached to the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act by Rep Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ). The amendment is one of a large number of riders attached to the NDAA, few of which ever survive passage of the annual appropriations bill.

marijuana160818“Whether senators will go along with enacting any of these reforms in the final bill remains to be seen,” Marijuana Moment reported last week, “but they would not be included under Senate leaders’ proposed amendment to entirely substitute the language of the House bill with the chamber’s own approach that will be considered when lawmakers return to Capitol Hill after the midterm elections.”

In fact, some suggest that the President’s administrative review of the scheduling of marijuana may be a trap. “Legalizing via Congress is (relatively) quick and easy,” Bruce Barcott wrote this week in Leafly. “The MORE Act, which would end the federal prohibition of marijuana, has now passed the House twice, but does not currently have enough support in the Senate.”

However, the Biden review is fraught with peril, Barcott says:

This order will be slow-walked by the FDA and DEA. They will run out the clock on the first Biden Administration.

If Biden is defeated in 2024, his Republican successor will kill the initiative. Even if the FDA and DEA come in with a shocking report advocating the removal of cannabis from the federal drug schedule, the new president will simply round file it. This has, sadly, happened before. If you don’t know the notorious story of President Nixon and the Shafer Commission, I invite you to wallow in that infamous chapter of American history.

If President Biden wins a second term in 2024, the outcome could be even worse.

If Biden presses DEA and FDA to act, his “fresh look” at marijuana’s status could result in a decision to keep it as Schedule I or re-schedule cannabis as a Schedule II substance. Both would be disastrous for pot decriminalization.

This is not likely to end well.

NY Cannabis Insider,  An honest take on the likelihood of federal marijuana legalization (October 3, 2022)

Marijuana Moment, Senators File NDAA Amendments To Legalize Medical Marijuana For Military Veterans And Protect VA Home Loan Benefits (October 3, 2022)

Leafly, President Biden’s marijuana ‘review’ could be a deadly trap (October 13, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Stranger in a Strange Land – Update for October 13, 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.

3RD CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT COLORABLE 2255 CLAIMS DEMAND A HEARING

burr221013Venue isn’t a very big deal in federal civil cases. But venue in a criminal trial – the right to be tried “in the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed” – is a 6th Amendment requirement so basic that it has its own jargon: vicinage.

And that makes sense. Just ask Aaron Burr. He got hauled all the way from Louisiana to stand trial in Richmond, Virginia, far from where the offense occurred and witnesses were located.  

Even now, criminal venue can get short shrift.  I once had a Philadelphia lawyer – who had just left the U.S. Attorney’s office – tell me over coffee that lack of venue in an indictment was no big deal because the issue was easily waived and hardly mattered anyway.  

He was wrong.

Dave and Judy Haisten ran a diversified business, selling misbranded pesticides and animal drugs, as well as a variety of counterfeit goods (which included DVDs). They sold some of the pesticides in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The DVDs, however, were seized by customs officials in Cincinnati en route to the Haistens’ South Carolina home.

Dave and Judy were convicted in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 14 charges, including two counts of trafficking in counterfeit DVDs. They each got 12 months’ concurrent imprisonment on the first twelve counts (relating to pesticides and animal drugs). However, Dave got 78 months on the two DVD counts, concurrent with the other 12 counts (for a total sentence of 78 months). Judy got 60 months on her DVD counts, all running concurrently.

The Haistens believed that where the DVDs were concerned, they were strangers to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  They argued that venue for the DVD counts only existed in Ohio – where the shipment was intercepted – or South Carolina, where they kept their stash of counterfeit DVDs. But their trial attorney did not request a jury instruction on improper venue or move for acquittal on the DVD counts for lack of proper venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

bartsimpson221013The Haistens ultimately filed a joint § 2255 motion, arguing that their lawyer had been ineffective for failing to challenge venue on the DVD counts. The U.S. Attorney’s opposition to their § 2255 motion followed the typical government script: (1) the lawyer did not screw up; (2) the lawyer’s screw-up was done for strategic reasons; and (3) the lawyer’s screw-up did not prejudice the defendants.

The District Court denied Dave and Judy’s § 2255 motion, holding that any venue argument by their lawyer would have been futile because the government had proved venue for the DVD counts, based on a spreadsheet offered by the government that showed the Haistens had sent five DVDs to customers in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Neither the government nor the district court obtained a declaration from the Haistens’ lawyer as to why he did not argue venue.

Last week, the 3rd Circuit reversed the denial, and sent the case back to the district court for an evidentiary hearing. In so doing, the Court of Appeals provided a refreshing reminder that the standard for entitlement to an evidentiary hearing is to be kept low. 

On appeal, the government finally admitted that there was no venue for the DVD counts, because the seized DVDs at issue in those counts were not actually involved in sales to Eastern District of Pennsylvania customers. It argued nevertheless that their lawyer had a strategic reason for not raising venue, and anyway, Dave and Judy could not prove that their sentences would have changed.

The Circuit admitted that an attorney’s performance is not deficient if it is the product of a strategic litigation choice. But, it noted, “a district court must hold a hearing unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief… If a claim, when taken as true and evaluated in light of the existing record, states a colorable claim for relief… then further factual development in the form of a hearing is required.”

strategy221013The 3rd ruled that “colorable legal merit is distinct from actual merit. The threshold for a habeas petitioner’s claim to be colorable is low. The bottom line is, given the lack of evidence in the record about trial counsel’s strategic reasons for failing to object to improper venue on [the DVD counts], it is inconclusive whether the Haistens’ trial counsel performed deficiently. And while we take no definitive position on the merits of the Haistens’ arguments on the prejudice prong, their theory that they are prejudiced by having additional, improperly imposed felony convictions on their record is not so conclusively meritless as to have justified denying them a hearing.”

United States v. Haisten, Case No 21-1421, 2022 U.S.App.LEXIS 27771 (3d Cir., Oct. 5, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Biden Marijuana Clemency Brings Forth a Mouse – Update for October 11, 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.

BIDEN’S PENURIOUS POT PARDONS

mountainmouse221011President Biden last Thursday pardoned thousands of people convicted of simple possession of marijuana (a 21 USC § 844 offense) and said his administration would review whether marijuana should still be a Schedule I drug like heroin and LSD.

The pardons will clear everyone convicted on federal charges of simple possession in the last thirty years. They will help remove obstacles for people trying to get a job, find housing, apply to college or get federal benefits. Announced a month before the midterm elections, the pardons could help fire up the Democratic supporters.

But they won’t free a single federal inmate.

Officials said full data was not available but noted that about 6,500 people were convicted of simple possession between 1992 and 2021. Only 92 people were sentenced on federal marijuana possession charges in 2017, out of nearly 20,000 drug convictions, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. And not a one of them is currently in prison.

You may recall a Biden spokeswoman said in May 2021 that the Administration anticipated starting granting clemency under a new, improved process just before the midterm elections. There’s no sign of a better commutation process anywhere, and as for the clemency list, Aesop would have said, “The mountain has labored and brought forth a mouse.”

Administration officials said there are no people now serving time in federal prisons solely for marijuana possession. The pardon does not cover convictions for possession of other drugs, or for 21 USC § 841 or § 960 charges relating to growing or possessing marijuana with an intent to distribute. Biden also is not pardoning non-citizens who were in the U.S. without legal status at the time of their arrest.

Biden stopped short of calling for the complete decriminalization of marijuana, which is something that Congress would have to do (and could do if the Senate passes the MORE Act). In fact, he largely seems skeptical of marijuana, despite his announcement. He warned that “[e]ven as federal and local regulations of marijuana change, important limitations on trafficking, marketing, and under-age sales should stay in place.”

marijuanahell190918However, he directed his Administration to review how marijuana is legally categorized, which drives the level of sentence. “The federal government currently classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 substance,” he said, “the same as heroin and LSD and more serious than fentanyl. It makes no sense.”

The Dept of Justice stated, “In coming days, the Office of the Pardon Attorney will begin implementing a process to provide impacted individuals with certificates of pardon. Also, in accordance with the President’s directive, Justice Department officials will work with our colleagues at the Department of Health and Human Services as they launch a scientific review of how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

The Washington Post said, “The Biden administration review of marijuana’s classification level, to be led by Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Attorney General Merrick Garland, could address long-standing questions over whether the possession of marijuana should ultimately be decriminalized at the federal level.”

Vox reported that Nishant Reddy, a former advisor to Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) on cannabis policy, said, “We’re just a few weeks away from midterm elections, so I do think there’s a little bit of strategic political play with this… That being said, it’s an exciting step in the right direction for those who are facing the negative consequences of unfair policing regarding cannabis.”

Attorney David Holland, executive director of Empire State NORML, sees it as Biden working toward cementing his progressive legacy rather than attempting to gain voter support.

“Biden doesn’t stand to gain anything by it, per se. This is only the midterm; he’s got another couple years to go. I think he’s trying to align himself with progressive politics that undo at least some of the harms of the drug war, and to set up a platform for two years from now that shows him to be a leader in causes relating to equity, justice, economic development, and so on.”

marijuana-dc211104Holland believes the more meaningful part of Biden’s announcement is the review and possible change in the federal status of cannabis as a controlled substance. “He’s setting the stage for future action,” says Holland. “There is definitely a paradigm shift coming over the next two years going into the 2024 election.”

Forbes last Friday quoted Andrew Freedman, executive director of the nonprofit Coalition for Cannabis Policy, Education and Regulation, as saying, “This could lead to a full descheduling, but I highly doubt that’s where it would end up. It’s more likely that the process ends up reclassifying marijuana as Schedule II, along with fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamine, or perhaps Schedule III. If Congress decides to act, it could remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and regulate it like alcohol and tobacco.”

“It’s a good sign that the Biden Administration is acknowledging that the current status quo is nonsensical,” says Freedman. “But I don’t think they’ve laid out a complete vision of where we go from here. There are current state markets that are operating; how do we catch up to that?”

While on the campaign trail, Biden said that marijuana should be decriminalized and that records should be expunged. Earlier this year, Biden granted nine people with federal marijuana offenses clemency.

Maritza Perez, director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of Federal Affairs, said there should be fuller relief for people, including resentencing, expungement and removing immigration consequences. “It’s a step in the right direction, but definitely does not do enough to really help repair the harms of the drug war,” she said.

clemency170206Some federal inmates were harsher: “Federal marijuana inmates say they’re shocked that President Biden’s mass-pardon for pot offenders doesn’t actually help them — telling The Post that the historic clemency amounts to a “rancid” pre-midterm elections stunt and a “slap in the face” that fails to do what Biden promised as a candidate.

There are about 2,700 federal pot inmates, according to a recent congressional estimate, but none will get out because Biden’s pardon applies only to the roughly 6,500 people convicted federally of simple possession, of whom none are in prison, and to unknown thousands more convicted under local DC law.

One inmate told the Post that inmates at FMC Fort Worth “started cheering for us in here for weed” until “the initial glee turned into yet another let-down.”

“Biden fed us rancid hamburger and the media is celebrating as if he served up filet mignon,” an FCI Fort Dix inmate, whose 16-1/2 year marijuana conspiracy sentence ends in 2031, told the Post.

Amy Povah, founder of the CAN-DO Foundation, which advocates for clemency for non-violent offenders, told The Post, “I’m elated for [Biden’s] pardon recipients,” but “I can’t wait for those who are currently incarcerated and have survived a historic pandemic under tortuous conditions to get the relief they were promised, as well.”

mario170628Michael Pelletier, a 66-year-old wheelchair-bound paraplegic who got clemency from Trump, told The Post, “It breaks my heart knowing there are still people serving life without parole for cannabis. I hope Biden will free all pot prisoners because I personally know several people who voted for him based on that campaign promise alone.”

New York Times, Biden Pardons Thousands Convicted of Marijuana Possession Under Federal Law (October 6, 2022)

Associated Press, Biden pardons thousands for ‘simple possession’ of marijuana (October 7, 2022)

LISA, Biden To Ask Fox To Advise On Emptying Henhouse (May 26, 2021)

Washington Post, Your questions answered about Biden’s marijuana pardon announcement (October 7, 2022)\

Dept of Justice, Justice Department Statement on President’s Announcements Regarding Simple Possession of Marijuana (October 6, 2022)

Vox, The most important part of Biden’s surprise marijuana announcement (October 8, 2022)

USA Today, Many Americans arrested for marijuana won’t find relief under Biden’s pardon plan (October 7, 2022)

Forbes, President Biden Says It’s Time To Change America’s Cannabis Laws (October 7, 2022)

New York Post, ‘Slap in the face’: Pot inmates call Biden mass-pardon ‘rancid’ election ruse (October 7, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root