All posts by lisa-legalinfo

Virus or No, The World Keeps Turning on Hobbs Act and FSA – Update for March 31, 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.

MEANWHILE, A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT FAIR SENTENCING ACT/HOBBS ACT CASES…

Two appellate cases handed down last week would have been headliners any other time except for now, with the coronavirus crowding everything else out of the news.

crackpowder160606In 2001, Brandon Gravatt was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of powder cocaine and 50 grams or more of crack cocaine (21 USC § 846). He pled guilty to the dual-object drug conspiracy charge, facing sentences of 10 years-to-life for the coke and 10-to-life for the crack. The court sentenced him to just short of 22 years.

After the Fair Sentencing Act became retroactive due to the  provision at Section 404 of the First Step Act (passed in December 2018), Brandon filed for a sentence reduction because the crack statutory minimum had fallen to five years. But the District Court denied his motion, because the 10-to-life sentence for the powder cocaine remained the same.

Last week, in a decision awaited by a lot of people, the 4th Circuit reversed. It held that even in a multi-object conspiracy like Brandon’s – where the penalties of one object (possession of crack) were reduced by the FSA while the penalties of the other (powder cocaine) were not – if the crack minimum sentence fell, Brandon was eligible for resentencing. The Circuit said because Brandon’s “sentence involved a covered offense under Section 404(a) [of the First Step Act], the district court should have reviewed Gravatt’s motion on the merits, applying its discretion under Sections 404(b) and (c).”

Of course, the 4th said, the quantity of powder cocaine in Gravatt’s case could mean the district court would decide not to lower his sentence. “Our decision today,” the Circuit said, “only requires that Gravatt’s sentence receive a substantive review. It should not be construed as expressing any view on how the district court should rule.”

Meanwhile, the 11th Circuit held last week that a Hobbs Act robbery was not a crime of violence for purposes of determining whether a defendant was a “career offender” under Chapter 4B of the Guidelines.

violence151213Joining the 6th and 9th Circuits, the 11th held that because the Guidelines definition of robbery and extortion only extends to physical force against persons, while under Hobbs Act robbery and extortion, the force can be employed or threatened against property as well, the Hobbs Act (18 USC § 1951) is broader than the Guidelines definition, and thus cannot be a crime of violence for career offender purposes.

Unfortunately, because 18 USC § 924(c) does include threats to property as well as to people, the 11th Circuit holding does not apply to defendants with § 924(c) counts supported by Hobbs Act convictions.

United States v. Gravatt, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9053 (4th Cir Mar 23, 2020)

United States v. Eason, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9096 (11th Cir Mar 24, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Records First COVID-19 Death As Congress OKs Expanded Home Confinement – Update for March 30, 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.

BARR AND THE CARES ACT

death200330A week ago, America had 35,000 COVID-19 cases with 40 deaths. As of this morning, the nation has over 143,000 cases and 2,052 deaths. The Federal Bureau of Prisons’ very questionable numbers, as of yesterday, showed 14 inmates and 13 staff down with the virus. The actual inmate number is undoubtedly much higher than what the BOP is willing to admit.

On Saturday night, a low-security inmate at FCI Oakdale I, 49-year old Patrick Jones, became the BOP’s first COVID-19 death. Jones, 49, was transferred to a hospital on March 19, days before the BOP admitted to having any inmates who had tested positive for COVID-19. He was placed on a ventilator the next day. Jones, who suffered from “long-term, pre-existing medical conditions” considered risk factors for severe coronavirus illness, died Saturday at the hospital, a BOP news release said.

Last Thursday, Attorney General William Barr instructed the Bureau of Prisons to “prioritize the use of your statutory authorities to grant home confinement for inmates” in response to the virus.

That “statutory authority” got a lot broader the next day, when Congress passed The CARES Act, which President Trump signed the same day. Buried in its 373 pages is a single section devoted to the BOP.  Section 12003(b)(2) provides that

(2) HOME CONFINEMENT AUTHORITY.—During the covered emergency period, if the Attorney General finds that emergency conditions will materially affect the functioning of the Bureau, the Director of the Bureau may lengthen the maximum amount of time for which the Director is authorized to place a prisoner in home confinement under the first sentence of section 3624(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as the Director determines appropriate.

emergency200330The “covered emergency period” began when Trump declared a national emergency and ends 30 days after he declares that the emergency has ended.

Under 18 USC § 3624(c)(2), the BOP can send an inmate to home confinement for not more than 10% of his or her sentence, up to a maximum of 6 months. The CARES Act provision has lifted the 10%/6-month limitation. This means that the BOP can send anyone with anything short of a life sentence to home confinement right away.

Sec. 12003 provides no guidance whatsoever as to how the BOP should pick the people to go to home confinement, or even if it should send anyone at all. However, Sec. 12003(c)(2) exempts any BOP rules on how to do it from the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, which means the BOP can roll out its own rules immediately.

The CARES Act passage makes Barr’s Thursday memo much more important. While the only authority the BOP has to wield as of Thursday was the Elderly Offender Home Detention Program (34 USC § 60541(g)(5)), it can now move many more people. Barr’s memo specified what the BOP should consider in making its decisions:

• inmate’s age and vulnerability to COVID-19 under Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines;

• The inmate’s security level, with priority given to inmates residing in low and minimum security facilities;

• The inmate’s conduct in prison, with inmates who have engaged in violent or gang-related activity in prison or who have incurred a BOP violation within the last year not receiving priority treatment;

• The inmate’s PATTERN score, with inmates who have anything above a minimum score not receiving priority treatment;

• Whether the inmate has a “demonstrated and verifiable re-entry plan that will prevent recidivism and maximize public safety, including verification that the conditions under which the inmate would be confined upon release would present a lower risk of contracting COVID-19 than the inmate would face in his or her BOP facility;” and

• The inmate’s crime of conviction, and assessment of the danger posed by the inmate to the community.

The memo stated that “some offenses, such as sex offenses, will render an inmate ineligible for home detention. Other serious offenses should weigh more heavily against consideration for home detention.”

BOP proposes holding anyone it releases in quarantine for 14 days prior to release to home confinement.

corona200313How much of this will happen? The devil’s in the details. The U.S. Probation Office has to approved residences for people going to home confinement, and Probation monitors people once they go home (usually with ankle monitors). There is a real possibility for a bottleneck as the U.S. Probation Office runs short of people to approve residences and of ankle monitors with which to take home confinement detainees.

Yesterday, the Marshall Project complained that Barr’s memo blocks anyone convicted of a sex offense or violent crime from being released to home confinement. DOJ policy also bars all non-citizens convicted of immigration-related offenses from serving out their time at home. Neither “sex crime” nor “violent crime” is defined in the memo, leaving the interpretation to the BOP. Note that The CARES Act leaves implementation of expanded home confinement to the BOP’s discretion.

Of course, nothing in the Barr memo or The CARES Act limits anyone’s right – even people with sex offenses or violent crimes – to seek compassionate release under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

Washington Post, An explosion of coronavirus cases cripples a federal prison in Louisiana (Mar. 29, 2020)

William Barr, Prioritizarion of Home Confinement as Appropriate In Response to COVID-19 Pandemic (Mar. 26, 2020)

The CARES Act, H.R. 748 (signed into law Mar. 27, 2020)

The Marshall Project, How Bill Barr’s COVID-19 Prisoner Release Plan Could Favor White People (Mar 28, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Directed to Send Some Boomers Home – Update for March 27, 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.

ATTORNEY GENERAL TELLS BOP TO SEND SOME PEOPLE HOME

Attorney General William Barr moved yesterday to release some federal inmates at heightened risk from the coronavirus, but he said no one would be freed immediately under the policy because of the need to make sure prisoners are not spreading the virus into the community.

corona200313Barr told the BOP in a memo to prioritize granting home confinement to inmates who were convicted of lower level crimes, have shown good conduct behind bars and have plans for release that won’t put them and others at greater risk for contracting the virus.

“We don’t want our institutions to become petri dishes,” Mr. Barr said at an unrelated news conference. “We have the protocols that are designed to stop that. One of those tools will be identifying vulnerable prisoners who would make more sense to allow to go home to finish their confinement.”

The attorney general said he asked BOP officials last week about protecting vulnerable inmates and lowering the chances of a serious outbreak by lowering prison populations.

“I asked if it was possible to expand home confinement, particularly for those older prisoners who have served substantial parts of their sentences and no longer pose a threat and may have underlying conditions that make them particularly vulnerable,” Barr said.

Barr told prison officials to give priority to inmates held in low and minimum security facilities; to those who haven’t been involved in violence or gang activities; and to those with low PATTERN scores. Those convicted of serious offenses, including sex crimes won’t be eligible, Barr said.

Barr’s guidance overlaps with a provision in the relief bill the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to pass TODAY, which lets the BOP shift federal inmates into home confinement sooner. Under 18 USC § 3624(c) as currently written, home confinement is capped at six months or 10% of a sentence, whichever is shorter. The bill removes that limit during the pandemic. The moves come as prisons are detecting more cases of the deadly virus.

release160523As of Thursday morning, Barr said six federal inmates and four staffers had tested positive for the virus, prompting the lockdown of several facilities, including ones in New York City, Atlanta and Louisiana. Barr said he’s getting reports of additional cases as well, but didn’t have the details.

As of yesterday’s 3 pm BOP update, the number had climbed to 10 inmates and eight staff, at MDC Brooklyn, MCC New York, USP Atlanta, FCI Oakdale and in halfway houses in Phoenix and Brooklyn. Staff have tested positive at Butner, NC; Ray Brook, NY; New York City; Danbury, CT; Yazoo City, MS; Leavenworth, KS; Atlanta, GA; and Grand Prairie, TX.

Criminal justice experts welcomed the idea of releasing more inmates to home confinement, but hoped the BOP would break its track record of granting release or home confinement in fewer cases than it could. Kyle O’Dowd, associate executive director of policy for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told Law360 that while the law and the memo are steps in the right direction, it remains to be seen how the BOP will carry them out.

“My concern is that it 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,” O’Dowd said.

Any prisoners moved out of federal facilities as part of the effort would be held in quarantine within the prison for 14 days before release to make sure they are not infectious, Barr’s memo said. Those convicted of sex offenses would not be considered for release, and those serving time for “serious offenses“ would have less chance of getting out, the directive said.

In some cases, vulnerable prisoners might be at less risk in jail than they would be at home, Barr argued. “Many inmates will be safer in BOP facilities where the population is controlled and there is ready access to doctors and medical care,“ he wrote.

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman wrote in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog that

[e]ven assuming that only a very small percentage of prisoners, say, only 1 out of every 15 current federal prisoners, meet the home confinement criteria, that would still mean that well over 11,000 federal prisoners would be eligible to head home to serve out the rest of their sentences. Because BOP has a well-earn reputation for being unwilling or unable to help prisoners get out of federal facilities early, I am not so confident that we will soon be seeing thousands of federal prisoners heading home. But the directive from AG Barr now would seem to make that more of a possibility.

Politico, Feds may send some prisoners home due to virus risk (Mar. 26, 2020)

Wall Street Journal, Barr Tells Federal Prisons to Increase Use of Home Confinement, Fearing Spread of Coronavirus (Mar. 26, 2020)

Law360.com, Federal Prisons Can Send More Inmates Home. Will They? (Mar. 26)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Will thousands of federal prisoners be eligible for home confinement under AG Barr’s new guidelines? (Mar. 26)

– Thomas L. Root

At Halftime, It’s Inmates 1, BOP 0 – Update for March 26, 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.

FEDERAL DEFENDERS WIN REMAND AGAINST BOP

Last winter, during the water and electrical breakdowns at MDC Brooklyn, the Federal public defenders organization sued the BOP and then-Warden Herman Quay, claiming they curtailed inmate-attorney visits in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the 6th Amendment. A district court threw the suit out, ruling that the Federal Defenders lacked the right to bring the action.

accessdenied191111Last week, the 2nd Circuit reversed. It ruled that the district court failed to consider BOP regulations in its zone-of-interests analysis and misconstrued the 6th Amendment claim: the Federal Defenders invoked the court’s traditional equitable powers in the 6th Amendment claim against Defendants, but the district court treated the claim as arising under the Constitution itself.

The Circuit remanded the case, and directed the district court “to consider appointing a master to mediate the parties’ differences at the earliest possible time to ensure that the Federal Defenders have meaningful, continuous access to their clients either in person or by remote access pending adjudication of these claims, as these claims may be amended to address similar issues of access arising during the current public health emergency.”

On Tuesday, the District Court appointed former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, now a partner at white-shoe law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, to referee the dispute. My read is that the 2nd Circuit wants this case settled, and wants the attorneys and their clients to come out on top.

Federal Defenders of New York v. BOP, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8845 (2nd Cir Mar 20, 2020)

Law 360, Loretta Lynch To Referee Dispute Over Detainees’ Atty Access (March 24, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Ask Not For Whom The Deadline Tolls… – Update for March 25, 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.

9TH CIRCUIT DELIVERS TIMELY WARNING ON LIMITS OF EQUITABLE TOLLING

With law libraries closed across the federal prison system, and typewriters, forms, copiers and the like largely unavailable, more than one inmate is probably going to blow a court deadline. A quick handwritten request for more time is always a good idea, but some deadlines – for motions under 28 USC § 2255, notices of appeal, and F.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motions, for example – have deadlines that courts can only extend with great difficulty, if at all.

equitabletolling200325A quick answer that inmate late filers have often heard from law library dwellers is to ask for “equitable tolling.” To hear some jailhouse lawyers describe it, equitable tolling is the fairy dust of forgiveness spread by judges riding unicorns. In fact, it is a bit more complex than that.

Equitable tolling is a doctrine in which courts, as a matter of fairness, pretend the deadline moved to the day the party actually filed his or her document, rather than the day on which the statute or rules said it was due. Last week, the 9th Circuit reminded everyone of equitable tolling’s limits, and what a movant has to show in order to qualify for equitable tolling when it does apply.

Tony Smith’s state lawyer waited 66 days to send him the appeals court’s denial order. The one-year period for Tony to file his federal habeas claim began with the state court’s decision. Tony figured, however, that because his lawyer caused a 66-day delay in getting the order to him, it was only equitable that he take an extra 66 days (at the end of the one-year period he had to file a federal 28 USC § 2254 action), to make up for the 66-day delay caused by his lawyer’s laziness.

Sorry, Tony… that’s not what “equitable” means in this sense. The district court held that Tony’s 28 USC § 2254 filing – 66 days after the deadline – was late, and not entitled to equitable tolling. The 9th Circuit agreed.

To be eligible for equitable tolling, a movant has to demonstrate he has been pursuing his rights diligently, not only while an impediment to filing caused by an extraordinary circumstance (his lawyer’s laziness) existed, but before and after as well, up to the time of filing his claim in federal court. The court rejected the “stop-clock” approach, the idea that when a movant is impeded from filing his petition by extraordinary circumstances while the statutory time is still running, he may add the time during which he was impeded to extend the limitations period.

timewaits200325Instead, the movant must show he was reasonably diligent in using the time after impediment was removed. In Tony’s case, this would have been in the 10 months after he got his appeals decision from his attorney.

Only when an extraordinary circumstance prevented a movant who was acting with reasonable diligence from making a timely filing that equitable tolling may apply. There is no hard rule (which is a feature of equity, not a bug). Instead, the court will look closely at the facts of the case. Because Tony could not explain how he was not able to file in the remaining 10 months of the period, equitable tolling did not help him.

Smith v. Davis, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8810 (9th Cir Mar 20, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

SCOTUS Says 5th Circuit Plainly Erred – Update for March 24, 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.

SUPREME COURT REBUKES 5TH CIRCUIT’S OUTLIER “PLAIN ERROR” STANDARD

Chuck Davis failed to complain when the district court made his federal sentence consecutive to a state sentence that was imposed for the same course of conduct. On appeal, however, he raised the issue under the “plain error” standard.

error161101“Plain error” under Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is a standard which is tougher to meet than the usual standard of review when a defendant has raised an objection below, but still one that can be met in some cases. It holds that an error that a defendant failed to raise in the trial court cannot be entertained on appeal unless it relates to a district court error that was plain (obvious), that affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and is such that it affects the integrity of the criminal justice system.

That’s a tough standard in and of itself, but the 5th Circuit has traditionally added its own gloss: if the error depended on facts that could have been raised in the trial court, it does not meet the standard. Under this cobbled-on addition to “plain error,” the 5th Circuit refused to entertain Chuck’s argument at all. The Circuit does not permit plain-error review where a defendant’s argument raised factual issues that could have been raised in the district court, because “questions of fact capable of resolution by the district court upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error.”

By contrast, almost every other Court of Appeals in America conducts plain-error review of unpreserved arguments, including unpreserved factual arguments.

Plain error in real life...
                              Plain error in real life…

Yesterday, the Supreme Court said that the 5th Circuit had to do so as well. Rule 52(b) holds that “a plain error that affects substantial rights may be considered even though it was not brought to the court’s attention.”  The Supreme Court said the “text of Rule 52(b) does not immunize factual errors from plain-error review. Our cases likewise do not purport to shield any category of errors from plain-error review… Put simply, there is no legal basis for the Fifth Circuit’s practice of declining to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error.”

Chuck’s case was remanded to the 5th Circuit for plain-error review.

Davis v. United States, Case No. 19-5421 (Supreme Court, Mar. 23, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

COVID-19 Wave About to Break on Prisons? – Update for March 23, 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.

CORONAVIRUS TSUNAMI THREATENS PRISON SYSTEM

A week ago, the United States had 3,500 confirmed COVID-19 cases, with 40 deaths. A scant seven days later, those numbers have increased by an order of magnitude: the nation has just passed 35,000 confirmed cases – including several members of Congress – and 413 deaths. And although some local and state governments are releasing thousands of inmates in order to prevent a coronavirus outbreak in crowded jails and prisons, there is no federal move to do so.

corona200323

As of last night, The Wall Street Journal reported, the Bureau of Prisons had confirmed three staff and three inmate cases. One of the BOP staff members who is presumed positive worked at a New Hampshire facility and may have been in contact with inmates, a BOP official told CBS News. The BOP only admits to one staffer at its offices in Grand Prairie, Texas (no prison there), one at USP Leavenworth (who, the BOP states, had no inmate contact), and one at FCI Yazoo City, Mississippi. The inmates are allegedly at MDC Brooklyn and FCI Oakdale II, Louisiana.

But despite inmate rumors to the contrary (and there are a lot of them), the BOP is not using its furlough power, its home confinement placement policies under 18 USC § 3624(c)(2), the Elderly Offender Home Detention program under 34 USC §60541(g), or ability to recommend compassionate release under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A) to speed the release of vulnerable inmates.

And it’s not for lack of pressure: Last week, the ACLU called on Attorney General William Barr to “immediately seek sentences consistent with retroactive application of provisions of the First Step Act, including the 851 enhancement, safety valve, and 924(c) “stacking” provisions.” The ACLU demanded that BOP increase use of compassionate release for those over 65, have a medical condition; or who suffer from diseases making them vulnerable to the COVID-19 disease, and people within a year of release.

On Thursday, the Federal Public & Community Defenders asked DOJ to direct the BOP to grant the maximum amount of home confinement and to expand its reasons for recommending compassionate release to include risks of coronavirus to “identified persons over the age of 60, as well as persons with diabetes, respiratory problems, and compromised immune systems as facing special danger from COVID-19.”

Inmate rumors that the BOP will release minimum security inmates were stoked last night when President Trump said the White House is considering issuing an executive order to release elderly, nonviolent offenders from federal prisons amid the coronavirus pandemic.

“We have been asked about that, and we’re going to take a look at it. It’s a bit of a problem,” Trump told reporters at a White House news conference. “But when we talk about totally nonviolent, we’re talking about these are totally nonviolent prisoners, we’re actually looking at that, yes.”

The President said no more on the subject than that, and readers should be cautioned that the President has made similar statements previously (such as having a list of 3,000 people for clemency) that have not ripened into action.

Last week, inmates were buzzing about a petition posted at the website change.org, demanding that President Trump order all BOP campers be sent to home confinement for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency. As of this morning, the petition had over 39,000 signatures.

coronadog200323Inmates face substantial risks due to the tight spaces in crowded conditions and strained health-care systems, according to experts. An opinion column in The New York Times last week warned that prisons and jails would be “the epicenter of the pandemic” unless action was taken. A similar column in The Washington Post warned, “Unless government officials act now, the novel coronavirus will spread rapidly in our jails and prisons, endangering not only prisoners and corrections workers but the general public as well.”

“We’re all headed for some dire consequences,” The Wall Street Journal quoted Daniel Vasquez, a former California warden, as saying. “I think it’s going to be impossible to stop it from spreading.”

CBS News reported Thursday that BOP employees say their lives are in danger after bungled instructions and widespread supply shortages. “The agency is in chaos,” CBS quoted Joe Rojas, regional vice president of a correctional officer labor union, as saying. “We are just scrambling to get things in order.” At a Florida FCI, BOP staffers told CBS News that officers transferring inmates lack access to protective gear, soap, and hand sanitizer. Gloves are in short supply, and workers plan to reuse disposable masks.

“Our supply is very limited,” Kristan Morgan, vice president of an officers’ union, told CBS. “It’s kind of like survival of the fittest at this point.” She said she spent Tuesday afternoon admitting a busload of 12 new inmates, all of whom had high fevers. The facility’s doctor is out sick, and their two nurses and one nurse practitioner are working around the clock. BOP staff have started to call in sick in order to avoid exposure. “They feel really betrayed,” said union president Ray Coleman said.

A BOP spokesperson told CBS everything was fine. Cleaning, sanitation and medical supplies at federal prisons had been inventoried as part of the bureau’s pandemic influenza contingency plan, she said, and “an ample amount of supply is on hand and ready to be distributed or moved to any facility as deemed necessary… The Bureau of Prisons is prepared to address any supply concerns if necessary.” Uh-huh.

Pinocchio160812Inmate COVID-19 fears do not much impress government prosecutors. Federal prosecutors argued in an SDNY felon-in-possession case that being locked up was probably safer than being free. Jail is “by its very nature isolated from the outside world,” they said, opposing a request for home confinement by Clifford Taylor, who is currently in MCC New York awaiting trial. The government said Taylor had not shown that the apartment of his children and mother, where he asked to be allowed to stay, would be any safer from the virus.

Wall Street Journal, Jails Release Prisoners, Fearing Coronavirus Outbreak (Mar 22)

CNN, President Trump says he is considering an executive order freeing elderly nonviolent federal prisoners (Mar. 22, 2020)

Wall Street Journal, Trump Shuns Use of Law Allowing Control Over Manufacturers (Mar. 23)

 

ACLU, Letter to DOJ and BOP On Coronavirus And The Criminal Justice System (Mar 18)

Federal Public & Community Defenders Legislative Committee, Letter to Attorney General William Barr (Mar 19)

Change.org, Home-confinement to lessen Camper’s exposure to the deadly COVID-19 virus (Mar 11)

The New York Times, An Epicenter of the Pandemic Will Be Jails and Prisons, if Inaction Continues (Mar 16)

Washington Post, We must release prisoners to lessen the spread of coronavirus (Mar 17)

CBS News, Federal prison workers say conflicting orders on coronavirus response is putting lives at risk (Mar 19)

Bloomberg, Jail Safer Than Outside, U.S. Says As Release Bids Mount (Mar 18)

– Thomas L. Root

Defendant Can’t “Bank” Jail Time Against Future Crime – Update for March 19, 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.

BANKING ON IT

Ron Jackson was sentenced to 20 year for a crack cocaine offense back in 2003. After the First Step Act passed, he received a reduction in sentence to time served under the retroactive Fair Sentencing Act. Ron had served 177 months at the time.

getoutofjail200319Freedom after 15 years in prison wasn’t enough for Ron. His revised Guidelines under the Fair Sentencing Act were 120 months, and he wanted his revised sentence to be reduced to that level. He intended to “bank” the 57 months he had served in excess of 120 months against a future supervised release violation.

The district court refused to make a deposit into Ron’s “time served” bank account, holding that the sentencing factors of 18 USC § 3553(a) only supported a reduction to time served. “In particular,” the court said, “the need to protect the public and the need for deterrence dictate that a defendant not be allowed to “bank time,” which could allow him to commit further crimes without the fear of imprisonment.”

Ron appealed.

Last week, the 4th Circuit upheld the district court. Ron argued that the new sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court misapplied § 3553(a)’s protection-of-the-public and deterrence factors in considering banked time and substantively unreasonable because banked time is an improper sentencing factor. The Court, however, found that a district court is not forbidden from considering the impact of banked time when deciding whether to reduce a “sentence to time served or some lesser term.” Furthermore, “a defendant is not entitled to a sentence that would result in banked time,” the 4th said. “Even when a defendant’s conviction itself is vacated, there are situations where the defendant will not receive credit for the time during which he was incorrectly incarcerated.”

piggybankjailtime200319The appeals court was concerned that letting Ron “bank” his time would only encourage him to later “spend” the banked time by committing a further crime for which he had already paid. The Court of Appeals said, “the availability of banked time to offset a revocation sentence” is very relevant to the factor of deterring future offenses and protecting the public. “It is reasonable,” the Circuit said, “for a district court to think that the prospect of returning to prison under a revocation sentence would provide a measure of deterrence against future crimes of the defendant and thereby provide a measure of protection to the public.”

United States v. Jackson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (4th Cir. Mar. 10, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

More Calls to Get the Foxes Out of the Henhouse – Update for March 18, 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.

CALLS FOR CLEMENCY REFORM CONTINUE

In a recent opinion piece in The Hill, Cynthia Roseberry – an ACLU official who worked on the Obama clemency initiative – called for turning the pardon and commutation process over to a White House-level commission.

henhouse180307“The clemency process,” she argued, “must be completely independent of the system employed to incarcerate millions of people. A first step is an independent commission with representation from all stages of the criminal justice system, including those who are formerly incarcerated, prosecutors, defense lawyers, corrections experts, and members of the public with appropriate resources to review the inevitable deluge of petitions from the masses. Independence would ensure that one actor could not put a thumb of the scales of justice, as is the case in our current system, where the same person who prosecuted the case in the Department of Justice has this power.”

As a real-world illustration of the problem, a bipartisan group of Congressional representatives last week wrote to the Acting Pardon Attorney, asking her to use her “authority when reviewing requests for clemency to consider individual criminal sentences that are significantly harsher than the original sentence offered by the prosecuting attorney in exchange for a guilty plea.”

The letter cited the “trial penalty,” the harsher sentence imposed when a defendant rejects a plea offer and goes to trial. The letter complained that “[t]he trial penalty results in a significantly longer prison sentence than those imposed on more culpable defendants who voluntarily waive their constitutional right to a jury trial,” and is used “to deter people from exercising their 6th Amendment right to a trial.”

The letter asked the Office of Pardon Attorney, when reviewing clemency petitions, to determine from the prosecutors what sentencing offers were made and rejected. The difference between the offer and what was ultimately imposed “should be considered in clemency petitions by the President.”

conflict200318In other words, an office of the very agency that offered the plea deal, and then advocated for a very harsh sentence when the deal was rejected, should not urge the President to grant clemency to a prisoner based on the agency’s own conduct.

Sure is lucky there’s no conflict of interest here.

The Hill, If applied equitably, clemency power can begin to fix damage caused by a broken system (Mar. 6)

Letter from 48 Representatives to Rosalind Sargent-Burns, Acting Pardon Attorney (Mar. 9)

– Thomas L. Root

Timing Is Everything – Update for March 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.

A DISTINCTION WITH A DIFFERENCE

gunb160201Clint Rumley had amassed quite a record by the time he was convicted of being a felon in possession of a gun under 18 USC 922(g)(1). He had over 20 prior state convictions, with five of them eligible predicate crimes of violence or drug offenses that would let the district court sentence him to a minimum 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Clint’s presentence report identified four of the prior convictions as supporting the ACCA sentence enhancement, one more than the minimum three priors called for by the ACCA.

When Johnson v. United States – a 2015 Supreme Court case that substantially narrowed what crimes could be considered crimes of violence – came along seven years into Clint’s 15-year sentence, he filed a post-conviction motion under 28 USC § 2255 to have his ACCA sentence set aside. The district court agreed with Clint that two of the four predicate convictions identified in the presentence report no longer counted, and vacated his 15-year sentence. But when Clint was resentenced, the new PSR noted that one state conviction not previously relied on for as qualifying as an ACCA predicate should have been counted against him. That conviction, plus the two priors that remained crimes of violence under the ACCA, got Clint resentenced to 15 years.

Clint appealed, relying on a 4th Circuit decision, United States v. Hodge. Hodge held that the government was not allowed to oppose a 28 USC 2255 motion raising Johnson claims by arguing that a prior conviction that had not been designated during the sentencing proceeding should have been counted as an ACCA predicate. But last week the 4th Circuit said Hodge was different, and upheld Clint’s new 15-year sentence.

In Hodge, the Circuit ruled, “we explained that defendants have a right to adequate notice of the government’s plan to seek an ACCA enhancement and of the convictions that may support that enhancement” (typically done by listing the supporting convictions in the PSR). When the government opposed a § 2255 motion by arguing that there were other convictions that could have been used to support an ACCA, the Circuit said, it shifted the burden of proof: while “at the sentencing the government has the burden of proving the defendant has three prior ACCA-qualifying convictions… on collateral review, the defendant has the burden of proving that the convictions supporting his ACCA enhancement are infirm.”

judge160425The Hodge concerns, however, do not arise in a full resentencing like the one Clint got. ‘The court conducted a full sentencing hearing, at which it received evidence and made findings of fact,” the Circuit said. Unlike Hodge, Clint “had adequate notice of the designated predicate convictions, giving him a full opportunity to challenge them. Moreover, the 2019 sentencing proceeding was conducted under the burdens of proof applicable in every sentencing, and our review is conducted under direct appeal standards, rather than on standards applicable to review of collateral proceedings.”

United States v. Rumley, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (4th Cir. Mar. 13, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root