All posts by lisa-legalinfo

“Frenzied” BOP Needs More for Less – Update for February 20, 2021

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

DESPITE FEWER INMATES, BOP IN ‘FRENZY’ TO STAFF UP

work210219What other business responds to a loss of customers by hiring more staff?

Despite the fact that the inmate population has decreased by 29% since 2013, the Federal Bureau of Prisons hired 4,000 new employees last year, and “is poised to add thousands more this year through a network of activities including advertising campaigns, virtual interviews and new job incentives,” according to a press release announcing a “hiring frenzy” issued last week.

The BOP has even “paused internal selections in order to devote 100% of the agency’s resources toward finding qualified candidates from outside the bureau,” for the next four months, a spokesman told Government Executive last week.

According to a Dept. of Justice Inspector General report last November, the BOP had a 16% vacancy rate for COs as of last June. Employees’ union officials have said staffing levels make “efforts to respond to COVID-19, national social unrest and basic operations within our prisons…a daily struggle.”

In the short term, there will still be “severe shortages in staffing in all departments, excessive backlog of duties, continued augmentation even further putting the non-custody staff further behind in their duties,” Aaron McGlothin, a CO and local union president at FCI Mendota told Government Executive. There could also be less programming for inmates and staff will be at greater “risk of assault by failing to provide the inmates with their rights under the ‘First Step Act’ and other needs.”

nowhiring210219Last November’s IG report noted that from 2000 to 2016, the BOP’s per capita cost of incarceration increased from about $22,000 to nearly $35,000 per inmate. “Consequently,” the IG said, “even though the BOP inmate population has declined by 29% from 2013 to 2020 to a current total of approximately 155,000 total inmates, the BOP continues to account for fully 24% of the Department’s total budget request in 2020.”

The good news in all of this is that BOP budget pressures and staff shortages may make a criminal justice reform bill palatable to otherwise hostile legislators.

Government Executive, Federal Bureau of Prisons Launches New Hiring Effort (February 11, 2021)

Bureau of Prisons, BOP’s Hiring Frenzy (February 10, 2021)

DOJ Inspector General, Top Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Department of Justice–2020 (Oct 16, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

First, Do Something Futile… And Do It Well – Update for February 19, 2021

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

COMPLETENESS COUNTS IN COMPASSIONATE RELEASE REQUEST TO WARDEN

compassionate200928Cory Williams wanted to file for compassionate release based on what he alleged was misconduct by his trial judge. So he dutifully asked his warden to bring the motion, as required by the administrative exhaustion requirement of 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The BOP refused, of course (as it always does), so Cory himself filed a compassionate release motion with the federal court that had originally sentenced him.

Early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of federal courts adopted standing orders that all inmates filing their own compassionate release motions would have counsel appointed to assist them. Cory’s court was one of those. The court appointed counsel to represent Cory. As we all know, counsel knows best (probably true in this case, where a defendant was essentially asking a judge to acknowledge his own misconduct was so bad that a defendant should be freed from prison). Counsel wisely scrapped Cory’s “I-should-go-home,-Your-Honor,-because-you’re-a-bum” argument, and filed an amended compassionate release motion that sought Cory’s based solely on COVID-19.

The government argued Cory had not exhausted his remedies with the BOP, because he had not raised his susceptibility to COVID-19 to the warden as a reason for compassionate release. Last week, the 7th Circuit agreed with the government.

“We have not yet had occasion to consider whether, in order properly to exhaust, an inmate is required to present the same or similar ground for compassionate release in a request to the Bureau as in a motion to the court,” the Circuit ruled. “But now that the issue is squarely before us, we confirm that this is the rule — any contrary approach would undermine the purpose of exhaustion.”

negativezero210219“The purpose of exhaustion…” That’s like saying the purpose of taking your kid to see Santa Claus at the Mall is to be sure he brings her the right toys on Christmas morning. Between March and December 2020, the BOP only granted 11 out of 10,940 inmate requests (that’s 0.001005484%, for you math fans). Let’s round that to about one out of 1,000 requests.

The § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) exhaustion requirement seems like so much Kabuki theater. No matter. A request to the warden is the price of admission, and that request should clearly state the grounds the inmate intend to use when he or she petitions the court without the BOP’s help, as invariably is the case.

United States v. Williams, Case No 20-2404, 2021 USApp LEXIS 3762 (7th Cir. Feb. 10, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Some Guys With Clout Propose Sentence Reform – Update for February 18, 2021

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

THE ODD COUPLE ARE BACK… WITH A WELCOME BILL

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) and Sen Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Ranking Republican on the Committee are a political odd couple if ever there was one. Liberal lion Durbin from uber-Democrat Illinois and an octogenarian raised-on-the-farm Republican seem to have nothing in common, but…

oddcouple210219But they are the duo who brought you the First Step Act, and last week they jointly introduced a bill to reform the Elderly Home Detention and compassionate release programs.

elderly180517The Elderly Offender program lets old folks (age 60 and above, so that includes your correspondent) – non-violent criminals whose continued incarceration cost the Bureau of Prison so much in medical expenses – serve the last third of their sentences on home confinement (where they pay for their room, board and medical, not Uncle Sam). That seems like a sweet deal for them and for the government. 

But trust the Bureau to manage to screw up a one-car parade. The BOP decided that two-thirds of the sentence meant two-thirds of the whole sentence, not for the good-time adjusted sentence that everyone ends up serving.  So an aged fraudster with a 100-month sentence – who will serve 85 months with good conduct time figured in – doesn’t get home confinement starting at 66.7% of 85 months, but instead must serve 66.7% of 100 months before he goes to home detention.

That’s not what Congress ever meant, as the House explained to the BOP last year in the HEROES Act (H.R.6800), which modified the statute to say as much). But HEROES never got a vote in the Senate.

elderly190109Now, Durbin’s and Grassley’s COVID-19 Safer Detention Act would clarify that the amount of time an inmate must serve to qualify for Elderly Home Detention should be calculated based on his or her 85% date, not the gross sentence. Additionally, the bill would reduce the minimum sentence for Elderly Home Detention from 66% to 50%, and give inmates who are denied Elderly Home Detention the right of judicial review.

The bill also proposes providing that COVID-19 vulnerability is a legitimate basis for compassionate release, and shortening the period prisoners must wait after submitting requests to the BOP to file with their courts from 30 to 10 days.

Three Republican and three Democrats have joined in sponsoring the bill. Ohio State law professor Doug Berman said last week in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, “Senators Durbin and Grassley are now the leading member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would seem to improve the odds of this bill moving forward.”

Press release, Durbin, Grassley Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Reform Elderly Home Detention and Compassionate Release Amid COVID-19 Pandemic (February 10, 2021)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Senators Durbin and Grassley re-introduce “COVID-19 Safer Detention Act” (February 11, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Mandamus Brings A Habeas Home – Update for February 17, 2021

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

MANDAMUS FINALLY WORKS FOR SOMEONE

money160118I would retire right now if I had a dime for every time a federal prisoner asks about filing a petition for writ of mandamus. Mandamus is a powerful weapon: the writ (literally, the order) of mandamus is issued by a higher court, directing a lower court it has to do something – that is, something ministerial instead of discretionary.

The best example is also, at least in the federal criminal sphere, the most common. A lower court has discretion as to whether it grants a party relief on, say, a petition for habeas corpus. The judge may grant it; the judge may deny it. But the court cannot sit on its gavel and do nothing. It must do something, although it is permitted a reasonable period of time in which to study, contemplate, and dig its way down its stack of other uncompleted work to get to the petition.

There are other, more creative uses of mandamus, most often practiced in civil litigation. But for now, let’s stick to the straightforward “making a lower court do something that is obviously ministerial.”

mandamus210218Because it’s so powerful, mandamus is a hard writ to obtain. The test for convincing a writ of mandamus includes showing that the movant’s right to the writ is indisputable and that there is simply no other way for the movant to get relief. It’s sort of the 9-1-1 call of extraordinary writs.

Kevin Hall was a federal prisoner pursuing a 28 USC § 2241 petition for habeas corpus. A § 2241 motion – which is the federal version of the classic writ of habeas corpus – must be filed in the district where the prisoner is located, which Kevin did. But then the Bureau of Prisons moved him from Indiana to Florida (something that I, looking out my window at 18″ of snow on the ground, think sounds like a good deal). The Indiana federal district court in which Kev had filed his petition inexplicably concluded that his transfer stripped it of jurisdiction to hear the § 2241 motion. Thus, the court transferred Kev’s case to Florida.

Any aficionado of the federal circuits knows that a defendant would much rather have his or her post-conviction motion heard in the 7th Circuit (of which Indiana is a part) than in the 11th Circuit (down Florida way). This is especially so where the remedy Kevin sought – a holding that the 2015 Supreme Court Johnson decision invalidated his Armed Career Criminal Act conviction – was likely to be shot down by the 11th, which doesn’t like any such § 2241 attacks on convictions or sentences.

So Kevin asked the 7th Circuit for a writ of mandamus bringing the case back to Indiana. He cited prior decisions holding that a prisoner’s transfer from one federal facility to another during a habeas proceeding does not affect the original court’s jurisdiction. Last week, the 7th Circuit agreed with Kevin, and issued the order.

home210218The government argued that Kev should have completely litigated his § 2241 motion in the Florida court, and then bring up the mistaken-transfer issue on appeal. The 7th swept the argument aside, noting that “without the availability of mandamus relief, the question of proper venue escapes meaningful appellate review… Mandamus is the proper vehicle for obtaining review of a transfer decision…”

In re Hall, Case 20-3245, 2021 U.S.App. LEXIS 4086 (7th Cir., February 12, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Pardon Joe While He Works on Clemency – Update for February 16, 2021

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

WHITE HOUSE BEGINS TO UNTANGLE CLEMENCY MESS

broken210216President Biden has inherited 14,000 unresolved clemency requests – petitions seeking a pardon (forgiveness of the offense) or commutation of sentence (reduction of sentence, usually to time served). Many of the clemency petitions date from the Obama era but a good number piled up in the last four years, during which time who you knew was more important that what you wrote in your petition.

Politico reported last week that the White House is seeking suggestions on how to reform the clemency system and deal with the backlog. But the White House so far has revealed little about its plans, leaving advocates concerned that Biden’s team lacks a comprehensive plan for dealing with the backlog.

Over 100 criminal justice reform groups are urging Biden to overhaul the process and start resolving cases right away. The ACLU launched an ad campaign last month to push him to grant clemency to 25,000 people and make good on his pledge to tackle criminal justice issues amid a national reckoning on racial injustice. “The danger,” law professor Mark Osler said, “is that they’ll replicate the mistake the past several administrations of never focusing on it until it’s too late and it’s a mess.”

While Biden didn’t campaign aggressively on the issue of clemency, the joint task force Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) assembled last summer proposed a 60-person agency independent of the DOJ, composed of people with diverse backgrounds to review cases.

clemencypitch180716Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tennessee), who chairs the House Judiciary subcommittee with jurisdiction over pardons, lobbied Obama and Trump to issue more pardons. He said he plans to do the same for Biden.

“There are… more and more people in jail, and a lot of those people have been there forever and they have been there for long draconian sentences,” Cohen said.

Ohio State University law prof Doug Berman counseled patience as the White House figures out a plan. But, he said, “taking a careful and deliberative process toward grander reform of the entire clemency process should not be an excuse for Prez Biden to hold back entirely on the use of his clemency pen…I am pretty confident that only a relatively little amount of time would be needed for members of the Biden team to identify at least a handful of compelling cases that could and should allow clemency grants” to be part of Biden’s first 100-day agenda.

Politico, Trump left behind a clemency mess. The clock’s ticking for Biden to solve it. (February 11, 2021)

Sentencing Law and Policy, How about some clemency grants from Prez Biden while his team works on grander clemency plans? (February 11, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Let’s Get Moving, People! – Update for February 12, 2021

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

LORD, GRANT ME PATIENCE… AND I WANT IT NOW

time210212With Biden in office, prisoners have been jamming my email inbox asking when President Biden will be tackling criminal justice reform. Everyone, including me, wants it now.

For that matter, people are asking whether the $1.9 trillion stimulus will include changes in compassionate release, CARES Act release and elderly offender home confinement. The answer: no one knows.

The stimulus bill’s details have not yet been released. For all we know, the details have not yet been written. We don’t know whether prisoners will qualify for the $1,400 stimulus. We don’t know about sentencing breaks, or extending home confinement past the end of the pandemic. The best estimates are that the text will be available some time in March.

advice210212The lack of action right now hasn’t stopped people from proposing what Biden should do. Reason magazine called for creation of a new pardon office, independent of the Justice Department, to handle clemency petitions at volume, with an eye toward cutting the sort of excessive drug sentences that both Obama and Trump criticized but did not address. Reason noted this wouldn’t require an act of Congress—just the will of a president able to admit the size and scope of the problem. Some Latino groups are proposing that Biden issue a mass presidential pardon for at least some of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally.

Writing in The Hill, Marc Levin argued that among the most important items deserving action by the White House and Congress are abolition of drug mandatory minimums and allowing courts to take a second look at certain sentences after individuals have spent many years behind bars. Others include laws prohibiting prosecutors from contaminating the sentencing phase of a trial with references to acquitted conduct waiving federal laws that interfere with state legalization of medicinal or recreational marijuana.

There is no shortage of suggestions. It’s just no one knows when it’s going to happen.

Reason, A Practical Wish List for Joe Biden (February 1, 2021)

USA Today, A pardon for ‘Dreamers’? Some activists tout amnesty for undocumented immigrants if Congress doesn’t act (February 2, 2021)

The Hill, Build a bridge, not a wall, between administrations on justice reform (February 1, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

‘Danger, Danger!’ – Courts Grapple With Prisoners’ ‘Danger to the Community’ on Compassionate release – Update for February 11, 2021

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

GUESS THEY MEANT WHAT THEY SAID…

saymean161103Part 1: About 80 days ago, the 6th Circuit ruled in United States v. Jones that because the Sentencing Commission – due to having too few members to even hold a meeting – had not been able to amend compassionate release policy statement § 1B1.13, district judges had no obligation to follow the old version of that Sentencing Guideline.

A little background: At the same time Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it established the Sentencing Commission. Among the Commission’s duties was a directive in 28 USC § 994(t) that it define in detail what constituted an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for a sentence reduction (what we commonly call compassionate release).

The Commission’s response was policy statement § 1B1.13, which faithfully adhered to the statute by – among other things – directing that a compassionate release could only be requested by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. After all, that was what 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A) said at the time. But in 2018, Congress change the statute in the First Step Act to permit prisoners to bring their own motions for compassionate release if the BOP turned down their request for the agency to do so.. Of course, the BOP turned everyone down: Mother Teresa herself could not have wrangled a compassionate release motion out of the Director.

motherteresa210211Normally, the Sentencing Commission would have amended § 1B1.13 in due course, updating it to reflect that compassionate release motions may be coming from inmates as well as the rare filing by the Director of the BOP. However, the Sentencing Commission was having its own crisis at the time. Three members left the Commission at the end of 2018 when their terms expired, and President Trump had not nominated any replacements. When he finally came up with a few names months later, the Senate never got around to confirming them. As a result, the Commission has lacked a quorum for two years now, and has been able to do absolutely nothing.

Thus, we have a revised compassionate release statute on the books, but an enabling policy statement that is still rooted in the Dark Ages.

That old policy statement set restrictive definitions as to what constitutes “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for a reduction, and said that any reason other than those listed in § 1B1.13 had to be approved by the Director. As well, § 1B1.13 required the judge – among other things – to determine that the prisoner “is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).”

That brings you up to date. Now, for today’s case:

Jones described a three-step process for deciding compassionate release motions: First, a prisoner must show extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. If that showing is made, the movant must then show that the motion is consistent with any applicable policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission. If he or she crosses that hurdle, the prisoner must finally show after considering the sentencing factors of 18 USC § 3553(a), the court ought to grant the motion. Jones’s three-step came with one big asterisk: where prisoners were moving for compassionate release on their own – instead of the motion being brought by the BOP Director – the courts should skip Step Two.

Paul Sherwood filed for compassionate release under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), claiming that COVID-19, coupled with his age and medical condition, constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. He claimed that the 18 USC § 3553(a) factors also weighed in favor of grant. The government admitted Paul’s medical conditions satisfied the “extraordinary and compelling” threshold, but it argued that his possession of prohibited sex images (read that as “kiddie porn”) meant he “remained a danger to the community, and that the § 3553(a) factors counseled against release.” The district court agreed in a two-line order that Paul “has failed to demonstrate that he is not a danger to the community. Not only was he convicted of possession… but he was convicted of transportation as well.”

pornC160829Last week, the 6th Circuit reversed the district court, telling everyone it meant what it said in Jones: § 1B1.13 is to be ignored. “While a brief order may well be sufficient for purposes of denying compassionate release,” the Circuit wrote, “where the order relies exclusively on an impermissible consideration, we must vacate the order and remand the case for further consideration.” The 6th admitted that the district judge could consider whether Paul had a “propensity to be a danger to the community upon release, as well as the nature and circumstances of his offense,” and it even presumed that “the district court’s initial balancing of the § 3553(a) factors during Paul’s sentencing remains an accurate assessment as to whether those factors justify a sentence reduction…”

In other words, the Circuit telegraphed to the district court that it didn’t expect the outcome to be any different after remand, only the process used to get there.

Despite its expectations, “because the district court relied on § 1B1.13(2) as the sole basis for denying Sherwood compassionate release,” the 6th remanded the so that the district court could decide whether the § 3553(a) factors alone weighed in favor of Sherwood’s release, without considering “danger to the community.”

Part 2: In early December, the 4th Circuit ruled in United States v. McCoy that § 1B1.13 should be ignored, and – additionally – that district courts could even consider disproportionately long sentences as reasons for compassionate release.

danger210211Paul Kratsas has spent nearly three decades in prison for a non-violent drug offense committed in Maryland. He moved for a sentence reduction, arguing that he would not get a mandatory life sentence if convicted today, and that his record of achievement in prison showed rehabilitation. The government, predictably enough, argued that there was nothing extraordinary or compelling in Paul’s showing, and anyway, he had not shown he would not be a danger to the community (even after 30 years in prison).

The district court noted that even under current law, Paul would qualify as a career offender, but “with good time credits, he has already served more than the bottom of those guidelines.” District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow obviously concluded that United States v. McCoy meant what it said. She held:

It is time to recognize that both the law and Mr. Kratsas have changed over the last three decades. His youthful refusal to acknowledge his guilt – or to accept punishment – has given way to reflective maturity. His positive attitude while in prison is demonstrated by the myriad courses, programs, and activities he has completed successfully, earning him transfer to a low security facility and the support of his mentor and family. He has demonstrated that he is not likely to be a danger to society due to his insights into his personal responsibility and the release plan he has offered. He is to be commended for his refusal to lose hope.

Paul went home last Friday… for the first time since 1992.

United States v. Sherwood, Case 20-4085, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 2806 (6th Cir., February 2, 2021)

United States v. Kratsas, Case No. DKC 92-208, 2021 U.S. List. LEXIS 13313 (D.Md., January 25, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Resentencing Good Fortune Can’t Be Bootstrapped Into a New 2255 – Update for February 8, 2021

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

GOING BACK TO THE WELL

nogoingback210208Any federal prisoner who has filed a post-conviction habeas corpus motion under 28 USC § 2255 knows that the § 2255 remedy – a powerful way to get as conviction overturned or sentence vacated – is pretty much a one-and-done thing: you can’t file a second § 2255 without permission from a court of appeals (pursuant to 28 USC § 2244). Getting that permission is a pretty tall order, requiring that you show there’s a new Supreme Court decision that the Court has decided should be applied retroactively to cases already decided, or you have some newly-discovered evidence that is so boffo that the jury would have acquitted you and the judge himself would have driven you home.

Charlie Armstrong thought he had found a work-around that would let him file a second § 2255 without having to jump through the § 2244 hoop. After being convicted and imprisoned on a marijuana charge, Charlie found himself to be the beneficiary of the Sentencing Commission’s 2014 reduction of drug-crime scoring for Guidelines sentence. The change was essentially an across-the-board reduction of two levels, and people already sentenced were allowed to apply two their sentencing judges for discretionary resentencing applying the 2-level reduction under the procedure laid out in 18 USC § 3582(c)(2).

After his conviction but before the 2014 Guidelines reduction, Charlie filed a § 2255 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. While the § 2255 motion was pending, the Sentencing Commission adopted Amendment 782, and after Charlie applied to his sentencing court, his judge cut his sentence by 25%.

mulligan190430Some time later, the district court got around to denying Charlie’s § 2255 motion (which, alas, is the fate of most such motions). Charlie promptly filed a second § 2255, challenging his newly-reduced sentence on the basis of ineffective assistance of his attorney. Charlie explained that he didn’t need § 2244 permission to file the new motion, because his 2-level reduction was a new, intervening judgment giving him the right to challenge the new sentence with a § 2255, essentially giving him a § 2255 mulligan.

The district court disagreed, and dismissed the new § 2255 petition as a second or successive motion.

The 2010 Supreme Court Magwood v. Patterson decision held that if “there is a ‘new judgment intervening between the two [§ 2255] petitions, an application challenging the resulting new judgment is not second or successive.” With this opinion in hand, Charlie appealed the district court’s denial, arguing his 2-level reduction was the exactly the kind of new judgment Magwood had in mind.

doover210208Last week, the 11th Circuit turned him down. The Circuit said that in Magwood, the sentencing court “conducted a full resentencing and reviewed the aggravating evidence afresh,” the 11th said, giving the sentencing judge a chance to commit new errors or to repeat the same errors as in the original sentence. But a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction “does not authorize a sentencing or resentencing proceeding.” Instead, it simply “provides for the ‘modification of a term of imprisonment’ by giving courts the power to ‘reduce’ an otherwise final sentence in circumstances specified by the Commission.”

Armstrong v. United States, Case No 18-13041, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 3265 (11th Cir., February 5, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

COVID Miracles (Performed by Statisticians) – Update for February 8, 2021

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

A COUPLE OF COVID MIRACLES… OTHERWISE, A BAD WEEK FOR THE BOP

Despite what was a pretty bad run last week, PR-wise, for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, we were privileged to witness a couple of miracles of Biblical proportion.

Screen Shot 2021-02-08 at 9.03.53 AM

First, the numbers: The BOP continues to write down the COVID-19 inmate totals. As of last Friday, the BOP reported 2,273 sick inmates, down 43% from the week before. Curiously, the agency reports 1,729 sick staffers, a mere 3% reduction from the week before. Cynics might say that when you control the patients, you can say when they’re recovered and when they’re not. Controlling employees who go home at the end of each shift… not so easy,

At the end of the week, the BOP reported 229 federal prisoner deaths, an increase of five. The BOP says it has tested 68% of all inmates at least once, with a whopping 44.6% testing positive for COVID.

Raisedead210208Now for the miracles: Three federal prisoners housed in private prisons have miraculously come back to life, at least on paper. Last Tuesday, the total number of inmate deaths in the private prisons dropped from 16 to 13 without explanation. The private operators, who are losing their federal contracts, seem to know something about how to cure people of COVID. Or perhaps they’ve taken the story of Lazarus to heart.

Meanwhile, the BOP is starting to provide vaccination information on its website, and – speaking of miracles – as of last Friday, the BOP was reporting that it had received 36,650 doses of vaccine, but somehow administered 2,638 more doses than it had received. The New Testament records that Jesus fed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fishes, and had more left over than he started with. The BOP has apparently replicated that miracle.

The BOP’s detailed vaccination information is woefully incomplete. In its facility-by-facility data, the number of inoculations accounts for only a third of the doses the BOP says it had distributed. Last Friday’s numbers show 7,468 staff (20.7% of all BOP employees) and 5,751 inmates (3.8% of the population) receiving the vaccine. The data only report that vaccines have been administered in 33% of all locations, which clashes with BOP statements several weeks ago . The New York Daily News said lawyers for defendants at MCC New York told it “the vaccine’s distribution at the jail has been haphazard, with some high-risk prisoners still waiting for shots.”

vax210208Other than the miracles, it was a tough week for the BOP. First, FCI Ft Dix Warden David Ortiz, who presided over a COVID-19 explosion at that facility last fall, suddenly was relieved of duty, reassigned to the BOP Northeast Regional Office. You may recall that the BOP uses desks at its regional offices as “time-out chairs” for wardens and other management people on the outs. Last summer, for example,  the BOP sent the FCI Oakdale warden to work on a desk at an office well away from inmates.

Ortiz was “temporarily” replaced by Lamine N’Diaye, the former warden at the MCC New York, who himself was placed on desk duty at the Northeast Regional Office in 2019 while authorities investigation the death of millionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. At the time, Jose Rojas, a BOP union leader and teacher at FCI Coleman, said N’Diaye should be home without pay instead of being reassigned. “I put this on the warden,” he said. “If he would have had common sense and followed policy, we wouldn’t be here discussing this.”

In Chicago, inmates filed a proposed class action suit against the BOP for conditions at MCC Chicago. The suit, Price v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Case No 1:21-cv-00542, claims the high-rise jail’s “haphazard and insufficient” measures to contain the coronavirus pandemic led to two major outbreaks, endangering people in custody and staff. The suit alleges a lack of cleaning supplies and proper social distancing as well as a “poorly implemented and incomplete” isolation and quarantine process. Officials also allegedly turned “a blind eye” to staff who didn’t wear masks and ignored some people in custody who asked for tests.

As a result, almost 300 MCC Chicago inmates have tested positive for COVID-19, although the lawsuit claims that “the real infection rate was certainly higher” than that.

More210208BOP correctional officers at FCI Mendota sued the BOP in the Federal Court of Claims last week for an extra 25% in pay for the hours they’ve worked during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aaron McGlothin, an FCI Mendota employees union leader, said COs feel particularly strongly about the need for hazard pay because they believe the Bureau of Prisons has not taken the proper precautions to protect them.

“At some point you have to say enough is enough, you have to do what you have to do, and seek outside assistance,” McGlothin said. “If our agency took the proper precautions, we wouldn’t have to deal with this the way we have, and they owe us.”

The Associated Press last week reported that records it obtained showed that the BOP’s string of executions at FCI Terre Haute last December and January “likely acted as a superspreader events… something health experts warned could happen when the Justice Department insisted on resuming executions during a pandemic. The AP said BOP employees carrying out the executions “had contact with inmates and other people infected with the coronavirus, but were able to refuse testing and declined to participate in contact tracing efforts and were still permitted to return to their work assignments… Other staff members, including those brought in to help with executions, also spread tips to their colleagues about how they could avoid quarantines and skirt public health guidance from the federal government and Indiana health officials.”

oops211202Finally, an arrest: A federal grand jury has returned a three-count indictment charging a former BOP CO, Jimmy Lee Highsmith, with sexually abusing three female prisoners at FCI Tallahassee. Highsmith was arrested last Wednesday night. In fall 2019, Florida Sen. Marco demanded the BOP respond to newspaper reports of sexual abuse of female inmates at Tallahassee and FCI Coleman camp. In fact, Highsmith was identified nine months ago by a former FCI Tallahassee inmate as having raped her.

There’s a saying among BOP inmates that many of the COs are “only a uniform change away…” Jimmy has become the illustration for that aphorism.

New York Daily News, Ghislaine Maxwell receives COVID-19 vaccine at Brooklyn federal jail: source (February 2, 2021)

NJ.com, Warden at N.J. federal prison reassigned amid massive COVID outbreak (February 2, 2021)

Albany Times-Union, Jail’s warden reassigned (August 14, 2019)

Chicago Sun Times, Inmates file class-action lawsuit over handling of COVID-19 at downtown jail (January 31, 2021)

The Fresno Bee, California prison employees file lawsuit demanding hazard pay during COVID pandemic (February 5, 2021)

Associated Press, Records show 13 federal executions under Trump administration at Indiana prison likely acted as COVID-19 superspreader (February 5, 2021)

Associated Press, Former corrections officer accused of sexually abusing multiple inmates at Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee (February 4, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Not So Fast… – Update for February 4, 2021

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

… MY FRIEND

corso170112This week, a pair of cases admonishing judges that haste makes waste.

John Doe (and I call him that because the court redacted his name and case number, something that you don’t see very much) was doing 151 months for a drug case. While locked up, John convinced his cellie to admit to killing his stepdaughter, a crime the cellmate was suspected but not charged with. The guy did so, and got life from the state. The government filed a motion to reduce John’s sentence under F.R.Crim.P. 35(b), asking for 12-18 months off.

The same day the motion was filed, the district judge granted it, cutting the 151-month sentence by a mere 12 months. John appealed, and last week the 6th Circuit reversed.

opinion210204The district court erred, the Circuit ruled, in granting the Rule 35(b) without giving John an opportunity to respond to the Government’s motion. “In granting the Government’s motion and deciding on the amount of reduction on the same day that the motion was filed,” the Circuit held, “the court denied John an opportunity to provide his own recommendation and present argument and accompanying evidence regarding the sentence reduction that he believed was warranted for his substantial assistance… a court does not, merely by agreeing with the Government’s assessment of the value of the assistance provided, thereby disavow its statutory discretion, particularly when the defendant has not provided his own recommendation concerning the value of that assistance and does not dispute the government’s description of his assistance.”

The judge in this district court travesty was none other than our perennial troglodyte jurist, the Honorable Danny C. Reeves, a guy whose sentencing screw-ups have graced this blog before (such as here and here). What’s so frightening is that then-President Trump nominated this knuckle-dragger to serve on the Sentencing Commission.  But I digress.

Meanwhile, in the 4th Circuit, three defendants filed Sec. 404 motions for the retroactive crack reduction. In what must seem like getting a pair of socks for Christmas, the district court their motions on a standard “AO 247” form (in which the judge just checked the box for “granted” without explanation) but then reduced the supervised release terms of each by one year without cutting any time from the prison sentences. Each defendant appealed, and last week, the Court vacated the reductions and send the cases back.

There is a presumption, the Circuit said, that a district court sufficiently considers all relevant factors in a resentencing motion, but that presumption is rebuttable. In this case, the defendants all presented evidence of their extensive coursework and exemplary prison conduct, “mitigating evidence that was not available at their initial sentencing hearing… “The presentation of post-sentencing mitigation evidence in each of the motions is sufficient to rebut the… presumption that the district court, in fact, considered all of the relevant evidence.”

goodboy210204The government argued that there was nothing special about the defendant’s post-sentencing conduct. Not so, said the 4th: the defendants “here have each spent nearly two decades in prison where, despite lengthy prison terms, they utilized the resources and programming they could access in prison to work toward rehabilitation… That kind of post-sentencing mitigating evidence is enough to require a district court to provide an explanation on the record of its reasons for deciding a sentencing reduction motion.”

United States v. [Redacted], Case No 19-[redacted], 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 2306 (6th Cir. Jan 26 2021)

United States v. McDonald, Case No 19-7668, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 1827 (4th Cir Jan 22, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root