I Felt The Earth Move Last Friday… Or Did I? – Update for July 22, 2019

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.

LAST FRIDAY, SOME PRISONERS FROM SOMEWHERE WERE PERHAPS RELEASED (WHO CAN SAY?) AND DOJ ROLLED OUT PROPOSED RISK ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 

Friday, July 19th was the day – a full 210 sunrises after President Trump signed the First Step Act into law. And, as required on that day, the Bureau of Prisons at long last credited federal inmates with the additional seven days per year promised them in the Act, and the  Dept. of Justice  released the risk assessment it proposes to have the Bureau of Prisons use to determine the likelihood that inmates will commit new offenses upon release.

A really big day… or was it?

yellowribbon190722Tie a Yellow Ribbon… Rahm Emmanuel may not have said it first, but he made it famous when he counseled his then-boss, President Obama, to never let a good crisis go to waste. DOJ dragged its feet in setting up a panel to implement the risk assessment model that is at the heart of the First Step Act’s earned time credit program (which lets federal prisoners earn extra time off their sentences for successfully completing programs that reduce recidivism). The Department as well fought hammer and tong to avoid crediting inmates with the extra good time Congress always meant them to have (but did not because DOJ interpreted a poorly-written statute as harshly as possible), an error corrected in First Step. And DOJ has opposed countless motions under the newly-retroactive Fair Sentencing Act for reductions of draconian prison terms.

Nevertheless, when faced with a July 19 deadline even it could not deny, DOJ did not miss the chance last Friday to trumpet its successes under First Step, chief among them that “over 3,100 federal prison inmates will be released from the BOP’s custody as a result of the increase in good conduct time under the Act. In addition, the Act’s retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (reducing the disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine threshold amounts triggering mandatory minimum sentences) has resulted in 1,691 sentence reductions.”

tsunami190722So where was the flood of prisoner releases at the end of last week? As I heard from  people at a dozen or more institutions, no one seemed to be leaving. This was corroborated by my own observation. With over 7,700 people on the LISA newsletter email list, I expected over 100 notifications from BOP on Friday of people whose Corrlinks email accounts were closed because they had been freed (such a notice is sent whenever someone is released and his or her Corrlinks account is closed). Instead, I got only 17 such messages.

Here’s what happened. As FAMM president Kevin Ring told the Wall Street Journal,  most of the 3,100 inmates released Friday were already among the 8,300 BOP inmates in halfway houses or the 2,200 people on home confinement. Thus, alleged tsunami of prisoner releases – while reducing BOP population overall – was a barely-noticeable ripple at the institutions.

Plus, as Mother Jones magazine complained last week, not all of last Friday’s releasees got to go home. “Roughly a quarter of them are not United States citizens,” the magazine said, “and many will instead be sent straight to immigration detention to face deportation proceedings, which could take years.” As it turns out, USA Today reported, 900 released inmates were transferred to ICE or state authorities.

tortoise190722Inmate Sentence Recomputation More Tortoise Than Hare…  More troubling are the numerous reports I have gotten from inmates and their families that BOP has not yet completed the recalculation of good time for most of the 151,000 inmates still in institutions. One inmates father reported that the BOP’s Grand Prairie, Texas, Designation and Sentence Computation  Center told him that the agency is processing each inmate’s new time manually, and that it is able to complete no more than 5,000 a month.

The reason for the glacial pace of recalculations is unclear, but it is hard to avoid noting that the BOP has had seven months to prepare for award of the additional good time. How the agency is unable, after seven months of preparation, to automate recalculation through a rather simple computer algorithm is puzzling.

recid160321I see a PATTERN Here… One of First Step’s marquee accomplishments is to establish a system that ranks each inmate’s risk of being a recidivist, and then tracks that risk throughout the inmate’s sentence. The inmate (unless he or she falls in one of the 60-plus “ineligible” categories) may take programs identified by the BOP as proven to reduce recidivism, and get up to 15 days credit a month for doing so. The credit may be used to reduce the length of his or her incarceration by up to 12 months, and beyond that, to earn the inmate extra halfway house or home confinement time.

Before the program is implemented, the DOJ must adopt a system to rank prisoners’ recidivism risk. On the last afternoon of the 210-day period First Step gave DOJ for doing so, it unveiled its proposed system, which goes by the unwieldy name “Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs.” Luckily, the name collapses conveniently into the acronym “PATTERN.”

PATTERN will classify a BOP prisoner into one of four Risk Level Categories (“RLCs”) by scoring him or her in much the same way security and custody levels are calculated by the BOP. PATTERN does this by assigning points in 17 different categories. The highest possible score (like golf, no one wants a high score) is 100. The lowest score is -50.

PATTERNB190722

This is roughly how it works: PATTERN has four different predictive models, 1) general recidivism for males; 2) general recidivism for females; 3) violent recidivism for males; and 4) violent recidivism for females. The Report noted that the base recidivism rate for all offenders is roughly 47% for general and 15% for violent recidivism.

The categories in which points are scored include (1) age of first conviction, (2) age at time of assignment, (3) prison infractions, (4) serious prison infractions, (5) number of programs completed, (6) number of tech or vocational courses completed, (7) UNICOR employment, (8) drug treatment, (9) drug education, (10) FRP status, (11) whether current offense is violent, (12) whether current offense is sex-related, (13) criminal history score, (14) history of violent offenses, (15) history of escapes, (16) voluntary surrender, and (17) education.

Generally, any score of -50 to +10 is a minimum recidivism risk, 11 to 33 is a low recidivism risk, 34 to 45 is a medium recidivism risk, and 46 or higher is a high risk. Its designers say “the PATTERN assessment instrument contains static risk factors as well as dynamic items that are associated with either an increase or a reduction in risk… PATTERN is a gender-specific assessment providing predictive models, or scales, developed and validated for males and females separately. These efforts make the tool more gender responsive, as prior findings have indicated the importance of gender-specific modeling.”

This means that as an inmate goes without getting disciplinary reports for infractions of prison rules, completes programs, keeps up with payment of fines and restitution, takes drug classes and gets older, his or her RLC category should fall. Even high and medium RLCs can earn credit for taking programs at the rate of 10 days per month, but once the RLC falls to low, that rate increases to 15 days per month.

PATTERNA190722So what BOP programs will build earned time credit? No one has said yet, but the PATTERN report offers clues. The PATTERN categories suggest that UNICOR employment, drug classes, GED and vocational programs ought to count, given PATTERN’s emphasis on importance of completion of those courses in the point system.

PATTERN is not yet a done deal. What happens next is a 90-day public comment period on PATTERN rules. Final rules will issue by Thanksgiving, with BOP staff being trained in applying PATTERN. Do not expect any PATTERN assessment to be done for real until Martin Luther King Day.

Dept. of Justice, Department of Justice Announces the Release of 3,100 Inmates Under First Step Act, Publishes Risk And Needs Assessment System (July 19)

Wall Street Journal, Justice Department Set to Free 3,000 Prisoners as Criminal-Justice Overhaul Takes Hold (July 19)

Bureau of Prisons, Population Statistics (July 18)

Mother Jones, Congress Helped Thousands of People Get Out of Prison Early. But Many of Them Will Probably Be Deported Right Away (July 19)

USA Today, Federal government releases more than 2,200 people from prison as First Step Act kicks in (July 19)

Dept. of Justice, The First Step Act of 2018: Risk and Needs Assessment System (July 19, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

3rd Circuit OKs § 2255 Amendment as “Relating Back” – Update for July 18, 2019

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 EXPLAINS WHEN 2255 AMENDMENT “RELATES BACK”

This may be an especially bad time to be talking about going back, but our topic has to do with an amendment going back (we call it relating back) to the date of the original filing. “Relating back” is important where statutes of limitations might otherwise preclude raising a claim.

go-back-security-sign-k-0138-lRule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lets a 28 USC § 2255 petitioner amend his or her petition, provided that the one-year deadline for raising issues (under 28 USC 2255(f)) has not yet passed or, if it has, if the amendment “relates back” to the original petition. When I was in law school, years before I had even heard of a § 2255 motion, the “relation back” standard of FRCivP 15(c) made no sense to me. My understanding hasn’t improved much in 45 years.

Two weeks ago, the 3rd Circuit tried to make sense of it. A § 2255 petitioner had filed a motion complaining that her trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective by, among other things, failing to argue at sentencing or on appeal, that the Presentence Report included certain errors, including an errant calculation with respect to the number-of-victims enhancement. In her amendment, the petitioner provided an explanation as to why her counsel was ineffective by failing to raise the errors.

In particular, petitioner said she would not have been eligible for the number-of-victims enhancement under the versions of the Guidelines that were in effect at the time of her alleged crime. According to petitioner, the PSR the district court relied upon at sentencing used the 2012 version of the Guidelines, which contained a broader definition of who may be considered a “victim” for purposes of determining eligibility for the number-of-victims enhancement. She said this made her eligible for the enhancement, and receiving a higher Guidelines range than she would have received under the 2006 and 2007 Guidelines.

The 3rd Circuit said this was a perfectly fine amendment. “These allegations merely are amendments that restate the original claim with greater particularity or amplify the factual circumstances surrounding the pertinent conduct, transaction, or occurrence in the preceding pleading,” and therefore the allegations contained in the motion to amend “fall within Rule 15(c)” and relate back to the date of petitioner’s initial habeas petition.”

The decision is a broad procedural holding in favor of § 2255 movants. It basically approves filing a skeleton § 2255 motion, and putting meat on its bones in a later amendment, even if the amendment well after the § 2255(f) deadline.

United States v. Santarelli, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20109 (3rd Cir. July 5, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Final Efforts Fail to Force BOP to Apply Additional Good Time Before July 19 – Update for July 17, 2019

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.

LAST-SECOND HAIL MARY ON GOOD TIME BATTED DOWN IN D.C. COURTROOM END ZONE

hailmary170613Sadly, football preseason is still a few weeks away, but that did not stop the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a D.C. legal foundation dedicated to fight federal agency infringement of liberties, from unloading a “Hail Mary” in its suit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons on behalf of an inmate late last month.

NCLA argued that its client, Robert Shipp, is due to be released in November under the old good-time calculation. But under the First Step Act, the extra good time he will get should have let him out in June. Even though he was due to be released from custody last month under a change in federal law, NCLA argued, “the BOP has refused to release him while it waits until July 19, 2019 to apply the new law at its discretion. There are some 4,000 federal prisoners like Shipp across the country who sit in limbo at BOP’s mercy.”

In the Washington Examiner last week, NCLA’s attorney said, “Each day the BOP ignores Congress’ orders, thousands of people continue to be held beyond their lawful release dates, away from their families. BOP is stealing time from them that they will never get back. Agencies like the BOP cannot wait until they find it convenient to follow the law; they should uphold the law and give people the good time credit they have earned.”

judge160229Unfortunately, life imitated sport. NCLA’s request for the emergency order was denied last week. With the clock running out, NCLA filed a motion for an emergency order telling the BOP to calculate the extra good time immediately. The judge held:

Shipp asserts that delaying the effectiveness of the amendment “makes no sense in light of the clearly stated Congressional intent to rectify the BOP’s previous actions in calculating good time credit.” He urges the application of the rule of lenity in his favor because “[a]t worst, the statute is silent as to the effective date for t[he]… good-time fix provision.” And he points to the legislative history of the act, which he contends shows that the good time credit amendment was intended to be effective immediately. But while it is sympathetic to Shipp’s position, the Court cannot agree with his interpretation of the Act. The statutory text clearly points to a single possible interpretation, which trumps any contrary indication of Congressional intent or in the Act’s legislative history. It may be that Section 102(b)(2) was inartfully drafted, and does not reflect what Congress intended in amending 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b). But even if that were the case, “[i]t is beyond [the Court’s] province to rescue Congress from its drafting errors, and to provide for what [the Court] might think… is the preferred result.” Having determined that Section 102(b)(1)(A) is not yet effective, and thus that Defendants are not unlawfully failing to comply with their obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), the Court finds that Shipp’s claim is unlikely to succeed on the merits and it denies his emergency motion for injunctive relief.”

Memorandum Opinion and Order, Shipp v Hurwitz, Case 1:19-cv-01733-RC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113096 (D.D.C. July 9, 2019)

Washington Examiner, Despite sentencing reform, the US Bureau of Prisons is holding thousands of inmates illegally beyond their release dates (July 8)

– Thomas L. Root

SCOTUS Davis Decision Already Cutting Sentences – Update for July 16, 2019

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.

DAVIS IS ALREADY HELPING DEFENDANTS

The ink isn’t yet dry on the Supreme Court’s United States v. Davis decision, but it is already being applied by lower courts.

shortnorth190716The 6th Circuit didn’t do many favors to the Short North Posse when it upheld the convictions and sentences of five defendants who had been found guilty of all sorts of drug-related mayhem in Columbus, Ohio. Almost all of their appeal issues were shot down. Two of the five, however, won on a single issue, and it was a whopper.

For their participation in a home invasion and murder, Chris Harris and Cliff Robinson were convicted of murder by firearm during a crime of violence under 18 USC §§ 924(c) and (j)(1). The government, loving conspiracies as it does, based the pair’s § 924(c) convictions on conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery under 18 USC § 1951(a). After all, proving a conspiracy is much easier than proving a substantive act (like a robbery).

When the government charged Chris and Cliff and the rest of the Posse back in 2014, no one foresaw Johnson v. United States, the 2015 case in which the Supreme Court declared the residual clause of 18 USC § 924(e) unconstitutionally vagueness. In the Short North Posse appeal, the government was forced to admit that a conspiracy to commit a Hobbs Act robbery could only be a crime of violence under 18 USC § 924(c)(3)(B)’s residual clause. That clause holds that “a ‘crime of violence’ is a felony offense ‘that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

violence160110On appeal, Chris and Cliff argued that their 924(c) convictions had to be vacated because § 924(c)’s residual clause is unconstitutionally vague. Naturally, the government argued that Johnson had nothing to do with § 924(c)’s residual clause. However, eight days before the Short North Posse decision, the Supreme Court held in Davis that  the § 924(c) residual clause suffered from the same infirmity that Johnson invalidated. 

Davis conclusively held that a conspiracy to commit a violent act, no matter how violent the act, is not a “crime of violence” under 18 USC § 924(c). Thus, the Short North Posse decision held that “[b]ecause the Government relies only on that now-invalidated clause to support [Chris and Cliff’s] convictions under § 924(c), those convictions must be set aside.”

This is the first Davis win I have seen. There will surely be many to follow.

United States v. Ledbetter, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19918 (6th Cir. July 3, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

DOJ Says It Will Meet First Step Act July 19th Deadline for Risk System, Good Time Calculations – Update July 15, 2019

Leave a comment

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

WHO’DA THOUGHT?

The First Step Act set a hard deadline of 210 days after passage – July 19, 2019 – for recalculating the 7-days-a-year extra good time and for Dept of Justice to adopt a new risk assessment program to be used by the BOP.

deadline190715Now, against the odds, the Attorney General says DOJ and BOP will meet the July 19 deadline for extra good time and adoption of a risk assessment system, despite DOJ blowing the deadline for setting up a risk assessment committee last winter because of the government shutdown.

USA Today and the AP both report that DOJ is expected to lay out the risk assessment rules on July 19, as required by First Step.

Adoption of the risk assessment program is critical, because once it is in place, the BOP then has six months to roll out the programs it identifies as like to reduce recidivism. Eligible inmates taking those programs will earn additional good time at the rate of from 10 to 15 days a month.

No one yet knows what programs will be eligible, but First Step encourages the BOP to be expansive, maybe even including some kinds of inmate employment. Every day I hear from people wondering whether ACE (adult continuing education) or required GED classes or UNICOR employment or even prison orderly jobs will earn extra good time. No one yet knows. But with the risk assessment program in place, the BOP will begin to identify what will and will not count.

July 19th reportedly will see release of about 2,200 additional federal inmates based on the 7-days-a-year good time being awarded for every year of one’s sentence. Fox News reported last Monday that July “will see the largest group to be freed so far under a clause in the First Step Act that reduces sentences due to “earned good time.” In addition to family reunification, the formerly incarcerated citizens, 90 percent of whom have been African-American, hope to get employment opportunities touted by Trump last month at the White House as part of the “Second Chance” hiring program.”

norose190715All is not roses with the earned time program, however. FAMM president Kevin Ring said last week that more attention and money is needed to support the new programs. FAMM is also unhappy that a long list of inmates, including those convicted of terrorism, sex crimes, some gun offenses, some fraud crimes and a few drug offenses will be excluded from qualifying for earned time credits. “There is going to be some frustration,” Ring said.

Acting BOP Director Hugh Hurwitz also acknowledged that the exclusions represent a looming inmate management test for prison staffers. “How do you manage inmates who are getting the credits and those who are not? That will be a challenge as we roll this out,” Hurwitz said.

The roll-out comes at a time when the BOP is grappling with persistent staffing shortages. To make up for a shortage of COs, officials have ordered teachers, nurses, kitchen workers and other staffers to serve as correctional officers. The practice, known as augmentation, draws staff away from the kinds of programs that officials are now touting.

Newly-installed Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who toured FCI Englewood last week, admitted First Step provisions “will put additional demands” on prison staffers. He told USA Today that DOJ was reviewing staffing across the BOP, but he believed that current personnel levels were not jeopardizing safety.

multi190715“Everyone who is trained to work at a federal prison learns to participate in the security role,” Rosen said. “But we’re looking at that and plan to do whatever makes sense.”

A number of advocates, however, have called for stronger oversight of the implementation by both BOP and the AG’s office, and for more funding. “We have concerns it might not be implemented appropriately,” said Inimai Chettiar, legislative and policy director at the Justice Action Network.

USA Today, Roofing, paving, artisanal bread: Feds look to kick-start law that will free hundreds of inmates (July 11)

Aiken Standard, A.G. William Barr, Sens. Graham, Scott laud First Step Act during Edgefield prison visit (July 12)

Associated Press, Around 2,200 federal inmates to be released under reform law (July 13)

Fox News, Thousands of ex-prisoners to reunite with their families this month (July 8)

– Thomas L. Root

Did You Mean It When You Said It? – Update for July 12, 2019

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 SAID IT, BUT I DIDN’T MEAN IT

Just about anyone who has pled guilty has suffered through a  change-of-plea hearing under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure – in which they were required to say they were happy with their lawyers, they fully understood the charges, and that no one had pressured them to sign the deal. Some of the answers are uninformed: How, for example, does anyone know whether defense counsel got things right? Others are outright lies: of course, counsel or family or even the government has applied pressure that would make Tommy Torquemada envious.

hitoverhead190712Later, when the defendant discovers his lawyer’s incompetence or the government’s connivance, he or she files a post-conviction habeas corpus motion under 28 USC 2255. And then, the defendant gets hit over the head with answers given at the Rule 11 hearing. No one reasonably believes that the Rule 11 plea answers have any validity, but that’s the game.

When Sergio Murillo signed his plea agreement, he had his lawyer get a lot of references to deportation taken out of the document. His lawyer bargained his charge down to conspiracy, which she told him would not lead to automatic deportation. But the plea agreement still had Sergio agreeing in one section that “because removal and other immigration consequences are the subjects of a separate proceeding, [Appellant] understands that no one, including [Appellant’s] attorney or the District Court, can predict to a certainty the effect of [Appellant’s] conviction on [Appellant’s] immigration status. [Appellant] nevertheless affirms that [Appellant] wants to plead guilty regardless of any immigration consequences that [Appellant’s] plea may entail, even if the consequence is [Appellant’s] automatic removal from the United States.”

Later, Sergio learned he would be deported, and he filed a 2255 motion arguing that his lawyer was ineffective for telling him otherwise. He wanted to take his plea back and go to trial. The district court cited what Sam had agreed to in the plea agreement, and denied the 2255 without a hearing.

don-t-read-too-much-into-it-you-ll-get-nothing-outTwo weeks ago, the 4th Circuit reversed, and ordered the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. The Court ruled that the district court erred by giving dispositive weight to the one sentence in Sergio’s plea agreement. Instead of weighing evidence that Sam would have rejected the plea agreement had he known it required deportation against evidence that he would have accepted it nonetheless, the district court found that single sentence “dispositive.”

“Giving dispositive weight to boilerplate language from a plea agreement is at odds with Strickland [v. Washington]’s fact-dependent prejudice analysis,” the Circuit ruled. “To determine whether a defendant was prejudiced by an attorney error, Strickland requires courts to undertake an individualized examination of the proceedings in which the error is alleged… A categorical rule affording dispositive weight to a prior statement is ill suited to an inquiry that demands a ‘case-by-case analysis.’”

United States v. Carillo Murillo, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18725 (4th Cir. June 24, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Keep on Gunnin’ – Update for July 11, 2019

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.

GUN AND RE-GUN

gunknot181009The Sentencing Commission does not have enough members for a quorum, so it cannot adopt any Guidelines changes. It still has a busy staff, however, and keeps grinding out studies.

At the end of June, the Commission issued a study of about 3,500 federal firearms offenders, reporting that

•   Gun offenders commit new crimes at a higher rate than non-gun offenders, with 68% being arrested for a new crime during the eight years following release, compared to 46% of non-gun offenders, with higher percentages in every age and criminal history group;

• Gun defendants re-offend more quickly than non-gun defendants. The median time from release to the first new crime was 17 months, compared to 22 months for non-gun people; and

•   More gun offenders were rearrested for serious crimes than non-gun offenders, with assault was the most serious new charge for 29%, followed by drug trafficking (14%) and public order crimes (12%). Of the non-gun offenders, assault was the most common new charge for 22%, followed by 19% for public order crimes and 11% for drug trafficking;

United States Sentencing Commission, Recidivism Among Federal Firearms Offenders (June 27, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Judge Holds Change in Drug Sentence Minimums “Extraordinary” Grounds for Sentence Reduction – Update for July 10, 2019

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.

We’re back after a well-deserved week off in Iceland (where the country’s five prisons each house about 30 (not a typo) inmates, who make an average of 28,000 ISK ($290.00) a month.

COURT GRANTS COMPASSIONATE RELEASE BECAUSE OF CHANGE IN DRUG MINIMUMS

A Houston federal district judge two weeks ago re-sentenced Arturo Cantu-Rivera to time served, negating two life sentences in a grant of an 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) compassionate release motion.

Art was doing time on a drug charged, which had been enhanced by an 851 motion to mandatory life in 1990. The court cited his having completed over 4,000 hours of programming, his tutoring GED classes, his age of 69, and his health, calling all of this an “extraordinary degree of rehabilitation.”

extraordinary190710But as well, the judge noted that the change in the drug mandatory minimums under the First Step Act was part of the “extraordinary and compelling” analysis: “Finally, the Court recognizes as a factor in this combination the fundamental change to sentencing policy carried out in the First Step Act’s elimination of life imprisonment as a mandatory sentence solely by reason of a defendant’s prior convictions… The combination of all of these factors establishes the extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying the reduction in sentence in this case.”

Memorandum Opinion and Order, United States v. Canto-Rivera, Case No. H 89-204 (SD Tex, June 24, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Guidelines Are A “Disaster,” Judge Says – Update for July 3, 2019

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.

JUDGE BLASTS SENTENCING REFORM ACT

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has taken some heat recently because he – like everyone else at the time – supported the 1994 crime control bill that so contributed to mass incarceration. But a federal judge writing in last Sunday’s Washington Post said critics should not stop with 1994.

trainwreckguidelines190703Eastern District of Wisconsin Judge Lynn Adelman wrote that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Guidelines “have been a disaster, and a debate by lawmakers about their status is long overdue.” Partly due to the sentencing guidelines, about 20% of all people imprisoned in the world are imprisoned in the United States (which has 4.27% of the world population) “The Sentencing Reform Act, and the commission and its guidelines,” the Judge said, “contributed substantially to this inexcusable state of affairs.”

The judge noted that after the Guidelines became advisory in the 2005 United States v. Booker case, the average federal sentence increased from 28 to 50 months and, with the abolition of parole, the average time a defendant served increased from 13 to 43 months. Between 1987 and 2019, the number of federal prisoners increased from about 50,000 to 219,000 before dropping to about 180,000.

badjudge160502Even after the Guidelines became advisory instead of mandatory, Judge Adelman complained, “district court judges have largely failed to… ameliorate the harshness of the federal sentencing system.” After Booker, average sentences dropped from 47.9 months to 44 months, but the percentage of defendants receiving prison-only sentences increased from 83.3% in 2003 to 87.8% in 2018.

The Judge argues that the Sentencing Reform Act should be substantially revised. “Congress was foolish to have abolished parole,” he wrote, “and should overturn that decision.”

Washington Post, There’s another tough-on-crime law Democrats should focus their criticism on (June 30)

– Thomas L. Root

F.R.Crim.P. 36: There’s Life in the Old Carcass – Update for July 2, 2019

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.

MAYBE RULE 36 IS NOT TOOTHLESS AFTER ALL

Everyone knows that Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant to move to correct a clerical error in the criminal case judgment. Over the years, I have found it useful mainly to correct mistakes in the defendant’s name, which invariably become part of the BOP record. Beyond that, we all are aware that Rule 36 cannot correct mistakes of fact or law, and for sure cannot lead to a reduced sentencing.

error161101Last week, the 4th Circuit suggested that maybe we have it wrong. Lamont Vanderhorst’s district court denied his Rule 36 motion to correct a clerical error in his Presentence Report. The PSR characterized one of his state convictions as “conspiracy to sell and deliver cocaine.” In fact, the conviction was “conspiracy to traffick [sic] cocaine by transportation.”

As a result of the clerical error, the district court wrongly sentenced Lamont as a career offender.

The district court denied the motion, holding that Rule 36 cannot serve as a means of pursuing resentencing. The Circuit disagreed, holding that “Rule 36 may serve as an appropriate vehicle for a defendant to obtain resentencing when a clerical error likely resulted in the imposition of a longer sentence than would have been imposed absent the error.” The 4th said that “when an error is purely a ‘clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, “the policy of finality is trumped and a court is authorized to correct the error at any time.”

Unfortunately, Lamont had four other priors that supported his career offender designation, so he was denied relief anyway. But the principle makes Rule 36 potentially a powerful gadget in the collateral-relief toolbox.

United States v. Vanderhorst, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18886 (4th Cir. June 25, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root