All posts by lisa-legalinfo

Meanwhile, Back At The Courtroom… – Update for April 17, 2020

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.

I THINK, THEREFORE I AM…

Watch me write an entire post without ever using the words “coronavirus” or “COVID-19.”

Despite our fixation-in-place with the pandemic, some legal news beyond The CARES Act release to home confinement of Michael Cohen is still being made.

violent170315A 9th Circuit decision last week held that even after the Supreme Court’s United States v. Davis decision last summer, a Hobbs Act armed robbery remains a crime of violence for purposes of 18 USC 924(c)(3)(A). That’s unsurprising: other than the pending 9th Circuit case United States v. Chea, there is hardly a groundswell to declare robberies to be non-violent.

But the 9th went beyond that and held, in a 2-1 decision, that – where a substantive offense is a crime of violence under 18 USC § 924(c)(3)(A) – an attempt to commit that offense is also a crime of violence.

The defendant, who had previously pulled off an armored car heist for a $900,000 score, decided to reprise his success. Unfortunately for him, the FBI had offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to his arrest, a pot of legit money that was enough to convince his sidekick to rat him out.

As the defendant drove toward the armored car garage, he got spooked by too much law enforcement activity in the area, and decided to abort. He was arrested a few days later, and convicted of attempted Hobbs Act robbery and carrying a gun during a crime of violence under 18 USC § 924(c).

The Circuit upheld the conviction, holding:

We agree with the Eleventh Circuit that attempted Hobbs Act armed robbery is a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c) because its commission requires proof of both the specific intent to complete a crime of violence, and a substantial step actually (not theoretically) taken toward its completion… It does not matter that the substantial step—be it donning gloves and a mask before walking into a bank with a gun, or buying legal chemicals with which to make a bomb — is not itself a violent act or even a crime. What matters is that the defendant specifically intended to commit a crime of violence and took a substantial step toward committing it. The definition of “crime of violence” in § 924(c)(3)(A) explicitly includes not just completed crimes, but those felonies that have the “attempted use” of physical force as an element. It is impossible to commit attempted Hobbs Act robbery without specifically intending to commit every element of the completed crime, which includes the commission or threat of physical violence. 18 U.S.C. § 1951. Since Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence, it follows that the attempt to commit Hobbs Act robbery is a crime of violence.

Judge Nguyen dissented, succinctly observing that “as the majority acknowledges, an attempted Hobbs Act robbery can be committed without any actual use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. Therefore, it plainly does not fit the definition of a crime of violence under the elements clause. Yet in a leap of logic, the majority nevertheless holds that “when a substantive offense is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), an attempt to commit that offense is also a crime of violence.”

Several district courts in the Second Circuit have held that attempted Hobbs Act robberies are not crimes of violence. I suspect this question will ultimately be settled at the Supreme Court.

Ithink200417French philosopher René Descartes famously posited, “Cogito, ergo sum.” For those of you who did not have Emily Bernges for high school Latin, this translates as, “I think, therefore I am.”

The 9th Circuit’s corollary is “I think about violence, therefore I have committed violence.” Somehow, it doesn’t have the same ring to it.

United States v. Dominguez, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10863 (9th Cir., April 7, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Extends Quarantine As Questions About Its Competence Continue – Update for April 16, 2020

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 SAYS IT’S “DOING PRETTY GOOD” ON COVID-19

Coronavirus has swept through the Federal Bureau of Prisons in the past three weeks, leaving over 725 confirmed cases among inmates, at least 16 prisoners dead, and, in the words of CNN, “raising concerns about the government’s handling of the crisis.” In response, the BOP has announced Phase VI of its COVID-19 response, which seems to consist primarily of another month of inmate lockdown.

attaboy200416

Inside some facilities, CNN reported last weekend, inmates have said they are locked in crammed and cramped cells without face masks and enough soap, and guards have grown concerned that they could be spreading the disease to their families. At a prison in Butner, North Carolina, the number of cases jumped by dozens – nearly 400% – earlier this week. At FCI Oakdale, Louisiana, where six inmates have died in recent days, corrections officers had to quell a small uprising with pepper spray on Wednesday, an official at the prison said.

Last weekend, BOP Director Michael Carvajal defended the steps the agency has taken to address the pandemic: “I don’t think anybody was ready for this COVID, so we’re dealing with it just as well as anybody else and I’d be proud to say we’re doing pretty good,”  Carvajal, who was named director in late February, told CNN.

Actually, the correct grammar would be “doing pretty well.” But mangled English is hardly the biggest problem with Mike’s auto-hagiographic assessment.

The Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette released emails yesterday in which Arkansas health officials discussed whether the BOP fully understood the “seriousness” of the coronavirus outbreak at the FCI Forrest City federal prison, and whether prison officials were fully cooperating with the mitigation effort. Although Director Mike spun the Centers for Disease Control inspection of FCI Forrest City as being the result of a BOP request for assistance, the released emails show that shortly after the first positive COVID-19 case at the FCI was disclosed on Friday, April 3rd, Dr. Naveen Patil, the Arkansas Department of Health director for infectious diseases, questioned the prison’s efforts and expressed a desire for CDC backup.

testing200413When an Arkansas state inmate came down with the virus, Mother Jones reported yesterday, prison officials immediately tested 48 other inmates in the unit, finding that 46 of them – almost all of whom had no symptoms – were infected. But the BOP’s COVID-19 planning has left the agency with no ability to test.  “We have very, very limited amounts of the testing kits,” Brandy Moore, secretary treasurer of the national union that represents correctional officers in federal prisons, was quoted as saying by Mother Jones.

At FCC Terre Haute, Indiana, “we have between 2,500 and 3,000 inmates, and we were given four tests,” Steve Markle, another leader of the national union who works at the prison, told Mother Jones in late March. At FCI Oakdale, correctional officers were told to stop testing people and just assume that anyone with symptoms had been infected, according to Ronald Morris, president of the local union there — even though, as shown by the Arkansas state prison experience, plenty of people can be asymptomatic.

All of this, Mother Jones reported, “is to say that statistics reported by the Federal Bureau of Prisons are likely massive undercounts. “Our numbers are not going to be adequate because we’re not truly testing them,”  Moore said.

Still, the BOP’s COVID-19 numbers – which the agency promised would be updated every day at 3 pm but which, each day, seems to be reported later and later – were updated after 6 pm last night to report COVID-19 had been confirmed in 449 inmates and 280 staff, spread across 43 BOP facilities. The number is undoubtedly much higher.

data200416Meanwhile, in a filing in the Eastern District of New York yesterday, the BOP admitted that “‘because of the shortage of tests, testing is currently reserved for those meeting’ certain criteria, including the kind of symptoms the inmate is facing, his potential exposure, whether he is high risk and whether he works in a high-contact role such as food service.” Through Tuesday, April 14, the number of inmates tested at MCC New York and MDC Brooklyn remained at 11 (the same number reported the prior Friday).

If you don’t test, you cannot confirm. If you cannot confirm, your data are meaningless.

Perhaps most sobering was a report in the Santa Barbara Independent that an inmate, Efrem Stutson, was released on April 1st and put on a Greyhound bus to San Bernardino by USP Lompoc officials while he had a hacking cough and was so ill “he could hardly hold his head up.” Efrem refused to go to the hospital that night, but the next morning his family insisted. Paramedics wearing protective equipment rushed him to Kaiser Permanente medical center in Fontana. Doctors diagnosed him with COVID-19 and put him in quarantine. No visitors were allowed. Four days later, Efrem died.

His sisters are heartbroken — and furious, the Independent reported. “Why did they release him so sick?” one asked. “They sent him home on his deathbed.”

death200330A USP Lompoc spokesman confirmed that Efrem was released on April 1st. But for “privacy, safety, and security reasons,” he said, he could not comment on Efrem’s medical condition at the time. “All inmates, prior to releasing from the BOP, will be screened by medical staff for COVID-19 symptoms,” he said. “If symptomatic for COVID-19, the institution will notify the local health authorities in the location where the inmate is releasing, and transportation that will minimize exposure will be used, and inmates will be supplied a mask to wear.”

Laura Harris-Gidd, Efrem’s sister, said he wasn’t wearing a mask when she picked him up at the bus station. “I just don’t understand why they would let him out instead of quarantining him and taking care of him,” she said. “I think they’re hiding a lot.”

“We’re dealing with it just as well as anybody else,” BOP Director Michael Carvajal said, “and I’d be proud to say we’re doing pretty good.” Right.

Hold you head up high, Mike.

CNN, Exclusive: ‘I don’t think anybody was ready for this Covid,’ says head of federal prisons (Apr 10)
Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Emails detail talks on illnesses at federal prison (April 15)
Mother Jones, Want to Know How Fast Coronavirus Can Spread in Prison? Look at Arkansas (April 15)
New York Law Journal, Brooklyn Federal Lockup Officials Describe ‘Shortage of Tests’ in Newly Filed Documents (April 15)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Relaxes COVID-19 Home Confinement Standard – Update for April 14, 2020

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 LOOSENING CARES ACT HOME CONFINEMENT STANDARDS

An affidavit filed last Friday in a class-action lawsuit against the BOP seeking the release of hundreds of high-risk inmates at FCI Oakdale suggests that standards governing which high-risk inmates can go home may be loosening.

release161117The American Civil Liberties Union sued the BOP in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana a week ago, claiming the Dept of Justice did not go far enough in a directive issued by Attorney General William Barr to begin releasing vulnerable prisoners to home confinement.

In a filing last Friday, the BOP said it was using seven criteria to place inmates in home confinement under the authority granted to it by Section 12003(b)(2) of The CARES Act: 1) The primary offense is not violent, sex offense or terrorism; 2) the inmate has no detainer; 3) mental health care level is less than IV; 4) the inmate’s PATTERN score is minimum; 5) BRAVO (BOP’s existing risk evaluation tool) score is low or minimum; 6) the inmate has completed at least 50% of sentence; and 7) no disciplinary actions within the past 12 months.

However, the FCI Oakdale Associate Warden said in the affidavit last Thursday that the requirement that the inmate have completed half of his sentence in order to qualify has been dropped. The AW also said that he expected that “the institution may consider expanding the criteria for review” even further.

The affidavit noted that the most common reasons for ineligibility appear to be history of previous violence or sex offenses.

Placement in home confinement, once approved, still requires the release plan be evaluated by the US Probation Office. “In order to facilitate faster removal of approved inmates from the prison facility,” the AW said, “the BOP has provided its Wardens with additional guidance allowing the use of non-transfer furloughs up to 30 days in length in specific circumstances. As inmates are approved for home confinement through the above-described review process, they may also be considered for such a furlough if they meet the criteria.”

prisonhealth200313Meanwhile, as more is being learned about COVID-19, medical conditions that were once considered irrelevant are being reconsidered. The CDC reported last week that hypertension, previously discounted as a risk factor, and obesity “were the most common comorbidities seen in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.” The study found that 50% of the COVID-19 hospitalizations studied while 48% had obesity, about 35% reported chronic lung conditions such as asthma, and diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease were seen in 28%.

Notably, the report said, of 580 patients with available race/ethnicity data, 45% were non-Hispanic white, while 33% were non-Hispanic black. A CDC doctor who worked on the study said this suggests “black populations might be disproportionately affected by COVID-19.”

Washington Post, ACLU seeks release of federal prison inmates where 5 died (Apr 6)

Bureau of Prisons, BOP’S COVID-19 INMATE REVIEW UPDATE (filed in Case No. 2:20cv422 (WD La., Apr. 10, 2020)

Medpage, Hypertension, Obesity Common in U.S. COVID-19 Hospitalizations (Apr 8)

Politico, Virus-wracked federal prisons again expand release criteria (Apr 11)

– Thomas L. Root

COVID-19 Numbers Rise, BOP Scrambles – Update for April 13, 2020

Leave a comment

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

THE WEEK IN COVID-19

corona200313A little over two weeks ago, Attorney General William Barr announced that “total of six inmates and four prison staffers have tested positive for COVID-19.” Last week, BOP admitted to 138 inmates and 59 staff sick (with eight fatalities). As of Sunday evening, April 12, the BOP’s updated numbers report 352 federal inmates and 189 federal prison staffers had tested positive.

Two more inmates have died. A 76-year old Oakdale prisoner, died of COVID-19 on Friday, and an 81-year old Butner I prisoner died on Saturday. The total now is ten.

The BOP is reporting that there are now 40 different federal facilities (and nine halfway houses) with positive COVID cases, up from 21 only a week ago.

At the same time, the BOP is moving to send the first wave of vulnerable inmates to home confinement under The CARES Act. A BOP release last week asserted that since Barr issued the March 26 memo “instructing us to prioritize home confinement as an appropriate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the BOP has placed an additional 886 inmates on home confinement.”

There is substantial basis for taking the BOP’s numbers with a grain of salt. The agency’s COVID-19 resource page updates its numbers daily, but it notes that the numbers include only inmates and staff “who have confirmed positive test results for COVID-19.” The problem is that testing appears not be getting done, and you can count what you don’t test.

testing200413Ten days ago, the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered the wardens at MCC New York and MDC Brooklyn to file twice-weekly reports with the court on the status of COVID-19 testing at the facilities. In a report filed last Friday, the wardens admitted that only 17 inmates (out of a combined population of nearly 2,500) had been tested. Only five tests had been done in the last week.

Seven of those inmates have tested positive for COVID-19, according to the report.

David Patton, Federal Defenders’ executive director, said the number of officially confirmed cases does not comport with reports he’s hearing from incarcerated clients about the apparent spread of COVID-19. “It’s hard for me to quantify how much more robust the testing ought to be, but we certainly receive a lot of reports from clients about people in their units who seem to be quite symptomatic,” Patton said.

At FCI Elkton, the BOP is reporting that only 13 inmates and 14 staff members have tested positive, Joseph Mayle, president of union representing many of Elkton COs, told a Youngstown, Ohio, TV station last Thursday that 67 inmates have either tested positive or are showing symptoms of the virus and that the entire inmate population is being isolated. Plus, he said, 44 inmates have been hospitalized, with 14 on ventilators. Twelve staff members, not the official count of nine, have tested positive, according to Mayle.

pinocchio200413At FCI Danbury, the BOP reported a week ago that fewer than a dozen inmates and only six staff members at the prison had tested positive. On the same day, the Hartford Courant newspaper reported that “inmates claim the number is higher. ‘I am well for now,” an inmate told the Courant on April 2. “It’s ripping through here like crazy. I just got back from medical. I don’t have symptoms. But they have many confirmed cases here. That’s according to medical.”

Sure enough, as of Easter Sunday, the Danbury count had tripled to 37 inmates and 30 staff with COVID-19.

Beyond questions about the accuracy of the BOP’s numbers are complaints about quarantines. In some instances, according to Politico, inmates being quarantined before being sent to home confinement are housed near prisoners being isolated because they’re suspected of having the virus. Politico says that wives of inmates at FCI Cumberland told it the facility is using the facility’s special housing unit – single- or two-person cells where inmates remain locked down for 23 hours daily – to hold both categories of prisoners. “They’re quarantining these healthy inmates with sick inmates that are already down there,” said Angela Sanks, whose husband, Collie, was due out in 2022 and was taken to the SHU for potential release several days ago.

The spouse of an Elkton inmate said her husband, who’s due out of prison in August of next year, was one of 56 inmates whose names were called a week ago to report for quarantine so they could be sent on home confinement. “They were all told: you’re going home,” she said. But on Wednesday, 54 of the men were sent back to their cells. “They told them, sorry, you’re not going anywhere, because they’d approved only two of them to leave.”

pantsonfire160805At MDC Brooklyn, a union official accused officials of transferring inmates with COVID-19 out of quarantine and back into general population only days after they’ve tested positive. BOP officials did not respond to questions about the allegation, according to The Intercept, but the charge was then raised in a court filing by federal public defenders. If the allegation is accurate, it would “call the credibility of the BOP’s representations about the practices at MDC Brooklyn into serious question,” lawyers with the Federal Defenders of New York wrote in a letter to the judge, saying it would “speak to the risk to all the inmates from such practices that are contrary to the CDC’s advice, and in particular the risk to vulnerable inmates.”

In a video address to staff last Friday, BOP Director Michael Carvajal reported that the agency has adequate supplies of personal protective equipment, and was a priority recipient for COVID-19 test kits. He acknowledged that the Centers for Disease Control inspected FCC Forrest City last week, and has been advising FCI Oakdale staff. The Central Office has sent 45 additional COs and a medical support team to Oakdale, and has accepted help from the Ohio National Guard and Army Corps of Engineers at Elkton.

Carvajal said 10 UNICOR factories have pivoted to the manufacturing of masks, nonsurgical gowns, shields, blankets and linens, emergency water and milk supplies and hand sanitizers. He also reported that inmate movement has been cut by 80%, but that there would always be some transfers due to court order.

Georgetown University assistant law professor Shon Hopwood, wrote last week in The Appeal that no one should “look to the DOJ to release enough people to make prisons and their surrounding communities safe.”

proactive200413

“They are always and always have been reactive instead of proactive,” Elkton union official Mayle said.

Sentencing Law and Policy, Latest BOP numbers reveal continued increases COVID-19 cases among federal facilities, inmates and staff (and more releases to home confinement) (Apr. 10)

BOP, Inmate Death at FCI Oakdale I (Apr 10)

BOP, Inmate Death at Butner I (Apr 12)

Law.com, No Coronavirus Tests Since Friday at New York City’s Federal Lockups, Mandated Report Reveals (Apr 7)

Bureau of Prisons, Letter filed in response to Administrative Order 2020-14 (EDNY Apr 9)

Cleveland Scene, The Latest out of Elkton Federal Prison, Where Horror Show Continues Apace (Apr 10)

Hartford Courant, With 20 testing positive for coronavirus, Danbury federal prison ordered to release high-risk inmates to home confinement (Apr 4)

Politico, U.S. prisons’ virus-related release policies prompt confusion
(Apr. 10)

The Intercept, Internal Prison Guard Email Contradicts Government’s Claims To Judges About Containing Coronavirus At Federal Detention Center (Apr. 10)

COVID-19 Video Update: April 10, 2020

The Appeal, Don’t Look To The DOJ To Keep Federal Prisons And Their Surrounding Communities Safe During The Covid-19 Pandemic (Apr 8)

– Thomas L. Root

“Risky Business” for Vulnerable Inmates – Update for April 9, 2020

1 Comment

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

SO WHO’S ‘AT RISK’?

Attorney General Barr has specifically directed the BOP to screen inmates who “have COVID-19 risk factors, as established by the CDC.” Exactly what are those factors?

prisonhealth200313The CDC has identified people “at high-risk for severe illness from COVID-19” as including

• People 65 years and older

• People with chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma

• People with serious heart conditions

• People with immunocompromised conditions, including cancer treatment, bone marrow or organ transplantation, immune deficiencies, poorly controlled HIV or AIDS, and prolonged use of corticosteroids and other immune weakening medications.

• People who are severely obese (body mass index [BMI] of 40 or higher)

• People with diabetes

• People with chronic kidney disease and who are undergoing dialysis

• People with liver disease

Beyond that, the evidence is rapidly developing that factors not listed are having a great impact on coronavirus mortality. The CDC’s weekly mortality and morbidity report for April 3 reported a strong correlation between hypertension and COVID-19 hospitalization. And that’s not all: “Public health departments reported cases to CDC using a standardized case report form that captures information (yes, no, or unknown) on the following conditions and potential risk factors: chronic lung disease (inclusive of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], and emphysema); diabetes mellitus; cardiovascular disease; chronic renal disease; chronic liver disease; immunocompromised condition; neurologic disorder, neurodevelopmental, or intellectual disability; pregnancy; current smoking status; former smoking status; or other chronic disease.”

Ironically, as of early March, hypertension was discounted as a risk factor for coronavirus. Understanding what could raise the risk of COVID-19 is changing as statistics are compiled.

For that matter, the 65+ age standard should not be considered to be a hard cut-off. Studies now show hospitalizations were much higher for ages 54 and higher, and disproportionately high among blacks. In fact, seven of the eight inmates who have died of COVID-19 were 53 or older, and half of them were under 65.

getoutofjail200319The risk to inmates comes from the implementation of authority granted to the BOP under The CARES Act and Attorney General Barr’s memo. The BOP says that “given the surge in positive cases at select sites and in response to the Attorney General’s directives, the BOP has begun immediately reviewing all inmates who have COVID-19 risk factors, as described by the CDC, starting with the inmates incarcerated at FCI Oakdale, FCI Danbury, FCI Elkton and similarly-situated facilities to determine which inmates are suitable for home confinement.” Reports indicate that BOP case managers – who are not trained medical personnel – are identifying the people who should be sent to home confinement.

As of yesterday, the count of BOP institutions with COVID-19 had climbed to 37. The BOP reported 283 inmates with COVID-19. The fine print, however, notes that the count includes only those who have been tested and found positive. This is troubling, inasmuch in a hearing in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last week, “inmates’ counsel was alarmed by the revelation that at MDC Brooklyn, only two other inmates were tested after five staff members and one inmate tested positive, asserting that many inmates with symptoms weren’t being tested and that the lack of testing likely meant that many more people had the virus inside the Brooklyn prison.”

If you don’t test for it, you aren’t going to find it.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): People Who Need Extra Precautions, People Who Are At Higher Risk

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Preliminary Estimates of the Prevalence of Selected Underlying Health Conditions Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 — United States, February 12–March 28, 2020 (April 3, 2020)

Medpage, Hypertension, Obesity Common in U.S. COVID-19 Hospitalizations (April 8, 2020)

Law360.com, Brooklyn Prison Urged To Settle At-Risk Inmates’ Release Bid (Apr. 9)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Updates Home Confinement Policy To Catch Up With First Step – Update for April 8, 2020

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 ISSUES NEW HOME CONFINEMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT

The BOP finally and officially has directed its staff to issue maximum home confinement (10% of sentence up to a max of 6 months, under 18 USC 3624[c][2]). This, of course, was something the BOP was told to do almost 16 months ago by the First Step Act.

home190109Section 602 of the Act amended 18 USC 3624(c)(2) – which authorizes home confinement for prisoners at the end of their sentences for a period not to exceed the lesser of 10% of their sentences or 6 months – to add that “the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, place prisoners with lower risk levels and lower needs on home confinement for the maximum amount of time permitted under this paragraph.”

The need to add the provision is inexplicable. Home confinement, overseen by the U.S. Probation Office for the BOP, costs about $8.00 a day, compared with imprisonment ($102.60 a day) or halfway house ($94.50 a day).  One would think that home confinement would be the first option a BOP case manager would be directed to consider, given the BOP’s chronic shortage of budget and personnel. It’s as close to a win-win as you can get.

But one would be wrong. The BOP has always been focused on halfway house, with the halfway houses then moving its inmates to home confinement as they got to the 10%/six-month eligibility period.

winwin200408Even after passage of the Act, the BOP used the delay in adoption of the PATTERN risk and needs assessment protocol as a basis for not maximizing home confinement. After all, the argument went, no one knows if someone falls into the “lower risk levels and lower needs” category without a PATTERN analysis.

Now that PATTERN is adopted, the BOP is out of excuses.

The April 3rd directive says the BOP interprets Section 602 “to refer to inmates that have lower risks of reoffending in the community, and reentry needs that can be addressed without RRC placement. The Bureau currently utilizes home confinement for these inmates.
Accordingly, staff should refer eligible inmates for the maximum amount of time permitted under the statutory requirements.”

Of course, the BOP’s adherence to First Step’s directive, like the rest of 18 USC § 3624, is exempted from judicial review by 18 USC § 3625. So there is no policing mechanism other than Congressional oversight to ensure that the BOP does what is undeniably in the agency’s own best interest.

Operations Memorandum 001-2020, Home Confinement Under the First Step Act (Apr. 3, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

3rd Circuit Frolics, Compassionate Release Suffers – Update for April 7, 2020

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 GOES OFF THE RAILS ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION

Francis Raia, a small-time Hoboken politician who tried to buy a city council seat for $50 a vote, ended up with a conviction for fraud and a very short 90-day sentence (which the government has appealed). Even a few months seemed like a lifetime to Frank, and – given the coronavirus – it might just be. So he asked his district court for compassionate release.

corona200313The district court said it would grant the motion, except that the case had been appealed by the government so it had no jurisdiction. Raia’s lawyers, rather than appealing the District Court’s decision, instead refiled the § 3582 motion with the 3rd Circuit to grant compassionate release, a truly foolish approach. (Appeals courts are for appeals, but that is an issue for another day).

Last week, the 3rd refused to grant Frank’s motion for several reasons, any of which would have been good enough by itself. But just to show it could be as foolish as the lawyers appearing before it, the Circuit then laid down some dictum on an issue that had not been briefed. The three-judge panel essentially gutted well-established exceptions to the administrative exhaustion doctrine in the process.

Exhaustion means that an inmate has to complete the administrative review process before he or she goes to court. The compassionate-release statute, 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A), requires that an inmate first ask the warden to recommend compassionate release, and exhaust remedies if denied. If the warden does nothing, the inmate can file directly with the court after 30 days.

Exhaustion170327There are some well-established exceptions to exhaustion. If exhaustion would be futile, if there are exigent circumstances, if the agency has already made clear that it will deny the request: all of these have excused exhaustion requirements in cases. Frank apparently did not ask the BOP for its recommendation first, but the district court never addressed that lapse, and on appeal, neither party discussed the exhaustion requirement (or Frank’s failure to meet it) in the briefs.

But the 3rd weighed in nonetheless. After paying lip service to the risks of COVID-19 to federal prison inmates like Raia, the three-judge panel said

But the mere existence of COVID-19 in society and the possibility that it may spread to a particular prison alone cannot independently justify compassionate release, especially considering BOP’s statutory role, and its extensive and professional efforts to curtail the virus’s spread. See generally Federal Bureau of Prisons, COVID19 Action Plan (Mar. 13, 2020, 3:09 PM). Given BOP’s shared desire for a safe and healthy prison environment, we conclude that strict compliance with § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement takes on added — and critical — importance. And given the Attorney General’s directive that BOP “prioritize the use of [its] various statutory authorities to grant home confinement for inmates seeking transfer in connection with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic,” we anticipate that the exhaustion requirement will be speedily dispatched in cases like this one.

BOP’s action plan? How’s that working out? The BOP sends COs back to work after being exposed to an inmate with COVID-19 who later died, The BOP fudges the numbers. The BOP denies any problems with halfway houses. Strong arguments exist that the BOP’s approach to COVID-19 has been ham-handed.

coronadog200323That is hardly the only problem with the slapdash decision. The Circuit held that before defendants file a motion in court for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A), they “must ask the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to do so on their behalf, give BOP thirty days to respond, and exhaust any available administrative appeals. See § 3582(c)(1)(A).”

Yesterday, Raia’s attorneys filed a motion for clarification with the 3rd Circuit, asking that the court at least correct that holding to require defendants to exhaust remedies or wait 30 days, but not both. The government does not oppose the motion, which argues that

It is critically important that the Court’s opinion be clear on § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s requirements. As the Court recognized, COVID-19 poses serious risks within the federal prison system, particularly to high-risk inmates such as Mr. Raia. Now more than ever, individualized determinations of compassionate release must be made as expeditiously as the law permits. Any suggestion that defendants must both wait thirty days and exhaust administrative appeals will inevitably lead to confusion among the district courts and delays in adjudicating properly filed compassionate-release motions, potentially with life-or-death consequences.

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman argued last Saturday in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog that the Circuit’s ruling “creates the problematic impression that “30-day lapsing/exhaustion” language in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) is tantamount to a jurisdictional bar to the granting of a sentence reduction motion. But the language and structure of this requirement makes it appear much more like what the Supreme Court calls ‘nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules’… With COVID-19 making every day matter, this is a critically important distinction because claim-processing rules can be forfeited if not raised by a party and might be subject to equitable exceptions. In other words, if and when the ‘30-day lapsing/exhaustion’ language is properly understood by courts as a claim-processing rules, then courts can… decide that the requirement need not be meet given the equities of a particular case.”

timewaits200325Berman rightly notes that “sentence reduction motions under § 3582(c)(1)(A) have become hugely important in the coronavirus world of federal sentencing. As SDNY Chief Judge Coleen McMahon astutely stated this week in US v. Resnik, No. 1:12-cr-00152-CM (SDNY Apr. 2, 2020) ‘releasing a prisoner who is for all practical purposes deserving of compassionate release during normal times is all but mandated in the age of COVID-19’.”

This is an awful decision, and what’s worse, an unnecessary one. The Court has already denied the appeal when it adds its “oh, by the way,” that the defendant had not exhausted administrative remedies (and does so in a misstatement of the statute that would earn a first-year law student a failing grade).

My belief that the Raia decision is an intellectual “drive-by shooting” of established administrative exhaustion waiver law is shared by others. In the New Jersey Law Journal, Christopher Adams, chairman of the criminal defense and regulatory practice group at Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis in Woodbridge, New Jersey, observed that prisoners may be able to sidestep § 3582(c)(1)’s 30-day requirement based on vulnerability to the coronavirus, because Raia fails to address a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court case, McCarthy v. Madigan, allowing prisoners to bypass administrative procedure based on equitable considerations. The 1992 case found exceptions to the 30-day requirement where such a waiting period would prejudice the subsequent court action, where the administrative process lacks authority to grant adequate relief, and where pursuing the administrative remedy would expose the petitioner to undue prejudice.

“I will continue to make these applications to district court. I would encourage people to try,” the NJLJ quoted Adams as saying. “Raia doesn’t close the door to compassionate relief applications, even when the administrative remedy is not observed. I admit, the circuit, in Raia, makes it much harder, but it doesn’t close the door completely.”

screwpooch200407I am glad Raia’s counsel – who screwed this pooch to begin with – at least sought clarification of the ruling. It would be far better to seek a rehearing pointing out to the court that it should withdraw the exhaustion portion of the opinion altogether.

United States v. Raia, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10582 (3rd Cir. Apr 2, 2020)

Unopposed Motion to Amend Opinion, United States v. Raia (filed Apr 6, 2020)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Misguided dicta from Third Circuit panel on procedural aspects of sentence reduction motions under § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Apr 4)

New Jersey Law Journal, After 3rd Circuit Setback, Defense Lawyers Look for New Path for COVID-19 Compassionate Release (Apr. 6)

– Thomas L. Root

Barr Doubles Down on Quick Home Confinement for At-Risk Inmates – Update for April 6, 2020

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.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

plague200406A week ago, America had 136,000 COVID-19 cases with 2,052 deaths. As of 6 am EDT today, the nation had over 336,830 cases and 9,618 deaths. A week ago, the Bureau of Prisons reported 14 inmates and 13 staff down with the virus. As of 3 pm yesterday, the BOP had 138 inmates and 59 staff down with the virus at Atlanta, Brooklyn, Bennettsville, the Butner complex; Canaan; Carswell; Chicago; Danbury; Elkton; Forrest City; Ft. Dix; Leavenworth, Lompoc, Milan, New York, Oakdale, Otisville, Ray Brook, Talladega, Tucson, the Yazoo City complex, and several RRC offices and facilities.

Also a week ago, Attorney General William Barr urged the BOP to use its statutory authority to release low-risk inmates at heightened risk because of COVID-19. Since then, response has been spotty: at some places, staff has quickly and efficiently carried out the directive, at others, staff is reviewing only people over 65, and at one institution I heard about, the warden told inmates that despite the Barr memo “no one was going anywhere.”

Meanwhile, inmates have begun dying, five at Oakdale and three at Elkton. Danbury has 21 female inmates down with COVID-19, and Lompoc has 17 sick male inmates.

Last Friday, maybe out of desperation as the virus spread, maybe out of irritation with the BOP’s snail pace, Barr issued another memo to BOP Director Michael Carvajal, “directing you to immediately review all inmates who have COVID-19 risk factors, as established by the CDC, starting with the inmates incarcerated at FCI Oakdale, FCI Danbury, FCI Elkton, and similarly situated facilities where you determine that COVID-19 is materially affecting operations. You should begin implementing this directive immediately at the facilities I have specifically identified and any other facilities facing similarly serious problems.”

The memo ordered that the BOP’s review should “include all at-risk inmates—not only those who were previously eligible for transfer.” The eligible inmates should immediately be processed for transfer to home confinement and put in 14-day quarantine.

hearme200406Noting that the US Probation Office is unable to monitor large numbers of inmates in the community, Barr “authorize[d] BOP to transfer inmates to home confinement even if electronic monitoring is not available, so long as BOP determines in every such instance that doing so is appropriate and consistent with our obligation to protect public safety.”

It almost seems that Barr is asking the BOP, “Can you hear me now?”

The directive that the BOP use its CARES Act § 12003(b)(2) authority will clearly cause some disparities in treatment. By focusing on institutions where the COVID-19 is present, nearly 100 facilities may see few if any releases for now. Furthermore, the release may skew strongly in favor of minimum-security inmates.

Kyle O’Dowd, associate executive director of policy for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, expressed his concern to Law360 a week ago that the release directive “won’t be implemented as robustly as it needs to be. There is a history of BOP being pretty conservative in their application of authorities they already have.” He was especially concerned that PATTERN scores would be used as a basis for home confinement decisions. “”If it is relied on too heavily, I think we will see just a trickle of releases rather than the more expansive application of that authority that we need under the current circumstances,” he said.

corona200313The BOP, of course, is in the middle of a 14-day lockdown, intended to arrest the spread of COVID-19. The action, started April 2, is subject to extension. One criminal justice advocate expressed disappointment in the lockdown, saying it is likely to aggravate problems related to the virus, not ameliorate them.

“How incredibly short-sighted, contrary to the advice of any experts, and inhumane,” Chris Geidner of the Justice Collaborative wrote on Twitter. The Week complained that the lockdown may be “too little, too late. Inmates will remain packed in close quarters, eating and bathing communally, disproportionately likely to have comorbidities which exacerbate the risk posed by COVID-19, and too often stuck with insufficient medical care or hygiene supplies.”

At the same time, there is ample concern that the BOP is not an especially trustworthy arbiter of home confinement decisions, based on its COVID-19 record to date. A week ago, the Washington Post noted that the BOP “updates confirmed coronavirus cases most afternoons on its website, but there has been a lag between cases reported by the officers’ union and prison officials.” It observed that BOP staff at Oakdale had “asked prison officials — weeks before the first coronavirus case — to shut down a prison labor program within the facility, where more than 100 prisoners make inmate clothing.” According to correctional officers union official Corey Trammel, the UNICOR line was not shut down until after the first inmate tested positive.

And although the BOP has admitted to COVID-19 outbreaks at BOP-contracted halfway houses in five locations, it told a reporter for The Appeal that it had “no factual evidence to support… allegations” that the facilities were at high risk for coronavirus outbreak.

plagueB200406Most damning, however, might be last Friday’s Marshall Project report that Dr. Sylvie Cohen, the BOP’s chief of occupational and employee health, ordered several Oakdale staff members back to work the day after they took inmate Patrick Jones (who later became the BOP’s first COVID-19 death) to the hospital. The correctional officers were issued no protective equipment other than latex gloves. Dr. Cohen, according to the story, directed that “officers should work unless they showed symptoms. This contradicts the recommendations the Centers for Disease Control was giving for first responders and other frontline workers and the specialized guidance it issued a day later for prisons and jails, calling for people who have had close contact with a confirmed case of COVID-19 to isolate themselves at home for 14 days.”

Like the Post, The Marshall Project suggested that the BOP’s official count of inmates and staff with COVID-19 was low. “Union officials say the toll is much higher,” the story noted. “On Wednesday,” the story reported, “prison brass met with a few dozen people held at the camp to discuss the virus, according to two of their family members. ‘Look, we probably all have it,’ officials told the prisoners, according to the wife of one man who attended. ‘It’s too late for us.’ They apologized, and said they were scared too, said the woman…”

Dept. of Justice, Increasing Use of Home Confinement at Institutions Most Affected by COVID-19 (Apr. 3)

Law 360, Federal Prisons Can Send More Inmates Home. Will They? (Mar. 26)

Washington Post, An explosion of coronavirus cases cripples a federal prison in Louisiana (Mar. 29)

Politico, Federal prisons start 14-day lockdown to fight virus (Apr 1)

The Week, When a prisoner dies of coronavirus, is the virus really to blame? (Apr. 2)

The Appeal, Halfway House Residents Describe ‘A Scary Situation’ As Coronavirus Sweeps the U.S. (Mar. 31)

The Marshall Project, Federal Prisons Agency “Put Staff in Harm’s Way” of Coronavirus (Apr. 3)

– Thomas L. Root

Melon Thumping at the Supreme Court – Update for April 2, 2020

Leave a comment

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

SCOTUS PUNTS ON SUCCESSIVE 2255 MOTION CASE

thumpmelon200402The Supreme Court last week refused to hear a challenge to 28 USC § 2244, the statute governing when prisoners should be permitted to file a second or successive habeas corpus motion under 28 USC § 2254 (for state prisoners) or 28 USC § 2255 (for federal prisoners). The denial is noteworthy for Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s published statement that the high court should settle a circuit split on the issue the next time a similar case comes before it.

Section 2244 states that a second or successive habeas corpus application filed under § 2254 must be dismissed unless it meets one of two very narrow exceptions, being based on a new Supreme Court retroactive constitutional ruling or on newly-discovered facts that just about guarantee the petitioner would have been acquitted by a jury. Like the Biblical eye-of-the-needle, it’s a pretty tight standard to squeeze through.

Although § 2244 by its express terms applies to § 2254 motions, federal appellate courts have traditionally interpreted the provision to apply to § 2255 motions as well.

Ed Avery filed a successive § 2255 motion, but the district court dismissed it based on his failure to get appellate court permission to file under 28 USC § 2244. He appealed to the 6th Circuit, which upheld the dismissal in an unpublished opinion. Six federal courts have ruled that the § 2244 dismissal statute applies to § 2255 motions. But last fall, the 6th Circuit flipped on the issue, holding in a published opinion that § 2244 clearly did not apply to a § 2255 motion.

In the appellate court world, a published opinion becomes precedent that binds all courts, even three-judge panels on the Court of Appeals. An unpublished opinion, along with about $5.00, will get you a venti latte at Starbucks. Ed, no latte drinker, wanted the published opinion to apply to his case, too. Having no other avenue, he went to the Supreme Court.

ventilatte200402An influential Washington, D.C., law firm took up the battle for Ed, arguing in a petition for writ of cert that the 6th Circuit’s published contrary ruling created a circuit split that called for resolution. He faced no pushback: the government had already filed a brief in the 6th Circuit saying it agreed that 28 USC § 2244 does not apply to § 2255 motions.

Predicting what cases the Supreme Court will decide to hear is more of an art than a science. The issue can be one the Court would like to decide, but it may still decline to review a case if the justices don’t think the facts of the case are quite right. It’s kind of like thumping melons in the produce section to decide which one is ready to eat. As you get better at it, you can find a good one more often. But in the end, it’s still how you hear the “thump” on any given day.

The Supremes decided for whatever reason that Ed’s case was not the right one to review in order to resolve the circuit split. Nevertheless, Justice Kavanaugh noted in a separate statement (which in itself is unusual on a denial of certiorari) that “[i]mportantly, the United States now agrees with the Sixth Circuit that ‘Section 2244(b)(1) does not apply to Section 2255 motions’ and that the contrary view is ‘inconsistent with the text of Section 2244.’ In other words, the Government now disagrees with the rulings of the six Courts of Appeals that had previously decided the issue in the Government’s favor. In a future case, I would grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split on this question of federal law.”

Avery v. United States, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 1651 (certiorari denied March 23, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Sloppy Bill-Writing Leads to Potential Windfall for Inmates – Update for April 1, 2020

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.

SLEEPER

The CARES Act passed last Friday included a $2 trillion stimulus package to provide financial relief to individuals, families and businesses. As with most hastily-passed laws, no one spent a lot of time giving careful thought to the fine print. But unlike most hastily-passed laws, this one does not clobber inmates (unlike, say, the good-time snafu in the First Step Act or the accidental “stacking” provisions of the old 18 USC § 924(c) gun statute). Instead, inmates stand to benefit.

money160118Unless you have been self-quarantining in a cave, you are aware by now that the government is sending payments of $1,200 to “eligible individuals,” defined by the CARES Act as any person other than a nonresident alien or a person who is a dependent of another taxpayer. That’s right – unlike other government benefits, this one does not exclude people in prison.

I’ll get this out of the way right up front: Congress has prohibited inmates from using Pell grants for college under 20 USC § 1070(a)(8), denied drug offenders access to certain benefits upon order of the court, and denied social security payments to people while in prison under 42 USC § 402(x). I have little doubt that Congress, had anyone thought about it, would have denied stimulus payments to prisoners.

But Congress did not.

Stimulus checks — up to $1,200 for individuals, $2,400 for joint taxpayers and an additional $500 for each qualifying child — will be based on information from your most recent tax filings, either 2019 or 2018 (if the taxpayer has not yet filed this season). If the taxpayer made under $75,000 last year, he or she gets the full $1,200.00.

If an inmate is married, he or she should be sure the couple files jointly, in order to get the extra $1,200 for the family. If the inmate’s spouse has already filed separately, he or she should file a 1040X to change things. Professional tax preparers or accountants can help with this procedure.

It does not matter that all the inmate made was inmate pay for sweeping the compound. Inmate pay is easily gross income under 26 USC § 61(a)(1). The inmate should file anyway, declaring all the money he or she was paid. Paper 1040 forms can be downloaded.

The stimulus check will be paid this year based on information from the most recent tax return and will be reconciled in tax year 2020 to ensure the taxpayer received the correct rebate amount.

taxreturn200401By law, anyone who made more than $1,100 in interest or dividend or over $12,200 in earned income must file a federal return, even prisoners. But filing tax returns even when the inmate does not make the minimum to is always a good idea, if for no other reason than to establish for the future what was earned for the year. Turns out that filing is an especially good idea right now.

The inmate should be warned that inmate pay may be gross income, but it is not “earned income.” It cannot be used to claim an earned income tax credit (an area that is rife with fraud). And there is no place to “claim” the $1,200.00 stimulus payment. Just file the tax return (a good habit to get into), and let the government determine eligibility for the stimulus.

Sec. 2201, CARES Act, H.R. 748 (signed into law March 27, 2020)

Turbotax, What the Coronavirus Stimulus Package Means for You (Mar. 27)

Bloomberg, When and How Will I Get That $1,200 Stimulus Payment? (Mar. 26) 

– Thomas L. Root