2255s Motions Aren’t Compassionate (and Vice Versa) – Update for June 14, 2024

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.

INNOCENCE ≠ COMPASSION

paid240615Everyone knows that paying your bills on time helps you build a strong credit history. That is probably the least of a host of good reasons for not doing what New York City drug lord Jeffrey Minaya did in 2000 instead of paying a Mexican cartel the $6.5 million he owed for 274 kilos of cocaine. He decided instead to whack the two cartel members who had been sent to the Big Apple to collect.

The drug lord hired Patrick Darge to shoot the bill collectors, and Pat, in turn, subcontracted backup duties to his cousin Joe Fernandez. The two guys sent from Mexico to pick up the loot were murdered in a rather ham-handed hit, but somehow the authorities were stymied as to the identity of the perps for over a decade.

However, in 2011, after Joe had accumulated a wife and kids, a regular job, and a clean record ever since the murder he was allegedly part of, he got picked up and charged.

pantsonfire160805Joe went to trial, where the government deployed his cousin, star witness Patrick Darge, to testify against him. This was significant because no one else could put Joe at the murder scene. On cross-examination, Pat admitted that as a cooperating witness in a different case, he lied to government agents and the judge about his involvement in two prior murders, his history of credit card fraud, the extent to which he dealt drugs, his brother’s involvement in his drug dealing business, and his brother’s habit of “shooting people.” Despite Pat’s admitted prevarications, the jury believed him and convicted Joe both of an 18 USC § 1958 murder-for-hire conspiracy resulting in two deaths and use of a firearm to commit two murders in violation of 18 USC §§ 924(j)(1). Joe was sentenced to two life sentences.

Joe appealed, arguing that Pat’s history of lies meant the jury should not have believed him. Joe lost. He then filed a 28 USC § 2255 post-conviction motion, arguing he was actually innocent and that the § 924(j) conviction in light of United States v. Davis. The court vacated the § 924(j) conviction, leaving Joe with only one life sentence to serve.

innocent161024In 2020, after about nine years in prison, Joe filed a motion for sentence reduction under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A), a so-called compassionate release motion. Joe argued that his potential innocence in light of Pat’s non-credible testimony and the disparity between his life sentence and the considerably lower sentences imposed on his co-defendants were “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction.

The district court was persuaded by Joe’s potential innocence and sentencing disparity grounds:

Although there is factual support for the jury’s verdict and the verdict has been affirmed, a certain disquiet remains. Did Patrick Darge sacrifice his cousin, Petitioner Fernandez, to save his brother, Alain Darge? Patrick and Alain ran to the Dominican Republic directly after the murders of Cuellar and Flores. Joe Fernandez did not. Fernandez was arrested 11 years after the murder, in his home, with his family. He was earning a living and had no record of violence. Patrick Darge had considerable motive to lie and had lied before to the Government in order to obtain more favorable treatment for himself and his brother. Additionally, the physical evidence indicated that all but one bullet fired at the scene of the crime came from a .380 caliber gun, which was the gun Darge used, despite the fact that Darge claimed Fernandez fired nearly all the shots.

The district court granted Joe’s motion, and Joe went free. Until this week, when the 2nd Circuit reversed the district court.

The 2nd held that Joe’s sentencing disparity is not an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce his sentence “under the plain meaning of the statute.” It is not extraordinary, the 2nd held, “(indeed, it should be expected) that a defendant who proceeds to trial and is convicted receives a longer sentence than his co-defendants who plead guilty to different crimes, accept responsibility, and assist the government by cooperating.” Nor is the disparity between Joe’s sentence and his co-defendants’ sentences “compelling”. Disparities between the sentences of coconspirators can exist for valid reasons, the Circuit ruled, “such as… the offenses of conviction, or one coconspirator’s decision to plead guilty and cooperate with the government.”

As for Joe’s potential innocence claim, the appellate court held that “a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one, regardless of the priority of enactment, unless there is a “clear intention otherwise.” The post-conviction remedy afforded by 28 USC § 2255 “places explicit restrictions on the timing of a habeas petition and the permissibility of serial petitions… Neither of these restrictions appl[ies] to a § 3582 motion.” The Circuit observed:

If Congress had intended to permit defendants to circumvent the strictures of 28 USC § 2255 by making challenges to the validity of a conviction cognizable on a compassionate release motion, it would surely have said so. Absent such a clear declaration of intent, we conclude that since challenges to the validity of a conviction must be made under § 2255, they cannot qualify as “extraordinary and compelling reasons” under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Compassionate release is not a channel to habeas relief or an end run around the limitations of § 2255.

guiltyproveninnocent230807Joe may have a pretty strong argument that he is innocent, a sacrificial lamb for the sins of his cousins. But if there’s a procedural means of getting him to a point that a court can actually entertain that claim, compassionate release is not it.

United States v. Fernandez, Case No. 22-3122-cr, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14133 (2d Cir. June 11, 2024)

United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Hallelujah! It’s Blog Post No. 1600 – Update for June 13, 2024

Leave a comment

1600240613For those of you keeping score—and I’m probably the only one—today’s installment is the 1,600th since I began posting news and comment on federal criminal justice issues back in 2015.

It’s probably not significant. If we had a Base 16 number system, it would only be Post 640. But the subject of this blog doesn’t often give us a reason to celebrate, so we had better take our wins where we find them.

SOMETHING IN THE AIR

thunderclap240613If you remember Thunderclap Newman’s single hit “Something in the Air” (1969)—like I do—you’re getting too old. The band was singing about the revolution, which, of course, never arrived, but a lot of us are thinking that something may be in the air about the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute before the month of June comes to a close.

United States v. Rahimi, the decision everyone’s waiting for, doesn’t deal with felon-in-possession at all, but rather subsection 8 of 18 USC § 922(g). That subsection prohibits someone subject to a court-imposed domestic protection order from possessing a gun or ammo. But in the wake of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a 2022 SCOTUS decision, it is likely that § 922(g)–which bans a whole list of people from felons to drug users to illegal aliens to people with DPOs from having guns–violates the 2nd Amendment.

That would be good news for Hunter Biden.

nickdanger220426It might be good news for a lot of people. The belief is that the Court will modify Bruen to add some “dangerousness” exception so that people who are proven to be dangerous with a gun can be prohibited. Such a decision would suggest that convicted felons who don’t have a history of dangerousness would not be subject to § 922(g)(1).

Some statutes are unconstitutional on their face, such as one, for example, that made insulting the President a felony. But others are only unconstitutional when applied to certain situations. The § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession was unconstitutional when applied to Bryan Range, who had a single pretty minor food stamp felony that was 25 years old. The same statute might not be unconstitutional if applied to the Unabomber.

Zavien Canada was convicted of a § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession, On appeal, he argued that his “felon-in-possession” offense should be thrown out because § 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional. Last week, the 4th Circuit cautiously rejected the argument, noting that there is something in the air.

“The law of the Second Amendment is in flux,” the 4th held, “and courts (including this one) are grappling with many difficult questions in the wake of Bruen. But the facial constitutionality of Section 922(g)(1) is not one of them. Indeed, no federal appellate court has held that Section 922(g)(1) is facially unconstitutional, and we will not be the first.”

gun160711The Circuit went on to suggest that if Zavien had raised an “as applied” challenge—that the felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional as applied to his situation—the outcome might have been different: “Our decision is narrow. Because Canada has expressly disclaimed any sort of as-applied challenge, we “may” simply “assume for the sake of argument that there is some room for as-applied challenges” to Section 922(g)(1)…”

Rahimi will not settle the felon-in-possession debate, however the decision goes. However, it is likely to be a nail in the coffin (and a fairly large nail at that) for the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute.

United States v. Canada, Case No. 22-4519, 2024 USApp LEXIS 13271 (4th Cir. June 3, 2024)

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, Inc v. Bruen, 597 US 1 (2022).

– Thomas L. Root

And Now, A Word From Judge Reeves – Update for June 11, 2024

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.

OPEN MIKE NIGHT AT SENTENCING COMMISSION

reeves230706United States District Judge Carlton Reeves (Southern District of Mississippi), who happens to also be chairman of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, issued a plea for assistance last week:

I’m writing to ask you for a small favor. Most summers, the Sentencing Commission announces the work we plan to prioritize over the coming year. This summer, to mark the 40th anniversary of the Commission’s creation (and twenty years post-Booker), we’re doing something different. We’re asking people – including you – to tell us what to do this year and in the years to come.

My request is this: please take five minutes of your time to tell the Commission how we can create a fairer, more just sentencing system. Tell us how to revise the Guidelines. Tell us what issues to study or what data to collect. Tell us what workshops to conduct, what hearings to hold, what advisory groups to convene, or what ways the Commission can better serve you. Or even just tell us what big picture issues you’d like us to tackle –or what technical problems you’d like us to look into. Trust me, I know how busy daily lives are, so we’ve made it easy to give us your thoughts.

You can type a paragraph (or even a sentence or two!) into our Public Comment Submission Portal at: https://comment.ussc.gov. If you want to write a letter, you can submit it through the Portal, too, or via snail mail to United States Sentencing Commission, One Columbus Circle, N.E., Suite 2-500, Washington, D.C. 20002-8002, Attention: Public Affairs – Priorities Comment.

The deadline for comments is July 15, 2024.

USSC170511Writing in his Sentencing Policy and Law blog, Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman said last week that “the message from the Commission seems pretty clear: it is prepared to, and is perhaps even eager to, start (re)considering any and all aspects of the federal sentencing system.”

USSC, Proposed Priorities for Amendment Cycle, 89 FR 48029 (June 4, 2024).

USSC, A Request from Judge Carlton W. Reeves, Chair, U.S. Sentencing Commission (June 5, 2024)

Sentencing Policy and Law, US Sentencing Commission sets out broad, general request concerning proposed priorities for 2024 to 2025 amendment cycle (June 6, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Two Circuits Blast Government ‘Dog Whistle’ Plea Agreement Breaches – Update for June 10, 2024

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.

‘YOUR HONOR, WE RECOMMEND A MINIMAL SENTENCE FOR THIS AWFUL SCUMBAG’

dogwhistle240610The Government is well known for its dog whistles, silent signals telling the Court that while it says it recommends some sentence agreed to in a plea agreement, it’s really dumping all sorts of dirt on a defendant intended to goad the judge into sentencing well above the agreed-on term.

Last week, two Circuits said the Government had gone too far.

Gerardo Farias-Contreras pled guilty to meth distribution in exchange for the government’s promise to recommend the bottom of a 151-188 month sentencing range.

In its sentencing memo, the government did what it promised, recommending a 151-month term. But the devil’s in the details. In the same memo, it argued that Gerry had been “convicted of an unquestionably serious offense” and that “drug trafficking is nothing less than pumping pure poison into our community.” Its memo quoted drug overdose death statistics, a book about the families of living drug addicts, and a “decades-old 5th Circuit decision that suggests drug dealing is a ‘grave offense’ worse than murder.” Claiming that Gery had “the top… criminal culpability in this case” and had been dealing for 30 years, the memo asserted that “ultimately, a significant sentence was warranted.”

At sentencing, the government said it stood by its recommendation, but that the recommendation had been the subject of much discussion in its office because Gerry “is at the top of the food chain in terms of criminal culpability… we have this individual, multiple years, multiple pounds, a massive amount of drugs that he is responsible for.”

The Court heard the government’s dog whistle and sentenced Joe to 188 months. Gerry didn’t object at sentencing like he should have, but on appeal he argued the government had breached its plea agreement.

pleadealb161116Last week, the 9th Circuit reluctantly upheld Gerry’s sentence. It noted that while the government promised to recommend a low-end sentence, “it spent five pages in its sentencing memorandum arguing for a ‘significant sentence’ and ‘made several inflammatory arguments, including in its sentencing memorandum… What’s more, the Circuit said, “the government seemed to suggest that some prosecutors in its office did not agree with the low-end recommendation” in light of Gerry being “at the top of the food chain in terms of criminal culpability…” thereby “winking at the district court to impliedly request a different outcome.”

The 9th said that the government is allowed to counter a defendant’s argument for a lower sentence, but that its “response must be tethered to its obligations under the plea agreement, even when responding to the defendant’s specific request for a downward departure or to the court’s questions… The government must comply with the letter and spirit of the plea agreement… This is a fact-specific inquiry based on contract principles. Courts should look at the totality of circumstances and consider… the sequencing, severity, and purpose of the statements.”

Because Gerry had not objected to the government’s dog whistle at sentencing, the error was not “plain” under F.R.Crim.P. 52, so the Circuit upheld the sentence.

Meanwhile, in the 1st Circuit, Yavier Mojica-Ramos made a deal on his 18 USC § 922(o) machinegun charge pursuant to which the government would agree to recommend a within-Guidelines sentence. The government filed a sentencing memorandum requesting an upper-end guidelines sentence of 46 months, but attached about 250 photos and a video taken from Yavier’s cellphone showing a lot of guns and drugs, with the video showing “an individual resembling Yavier… recklessly brandishing an assault-style rifle by repeatedly pointing the barrel at the individual who is recording the video.”

gun160718

The government said the photos and video “are additional evidence that Yavier has an interest in… other criminal behavior beyond the machinegun count charged.” Relying on what it called “alarming content,” the government urged the court to consider the cellphone content as “additional information” on Yavier’s criminal activity. The government fumed that “[t]he danger to the community and the serious nature of the offense should be considered exceptional in this case” and highlighted the “high rates of gun violence in Puerto Rico, the purported deterrent effect of lengthy sentences for gun offenders, and the particularly strong need to protect the public from Yavier.”

Yavier demanded that the government honor its obligations under the plea agreement, but the district court denied the motion, hammering Yavier with a 72-month upward-variant sentence.

Last week, the 1st Circuit reversed Yavier’s sentence. The Circuit rejected the government’s excuse that its “duty of candor” required that it provide the cellphone contents to the court, holding that such a duty

does not allow it to goad the court into relying on uncharged conduct without providing any corroborating evidence that Yavier was involved in the alleged firearm and drug crimes depicted in the cellphone content. Aside from stating that the images were extracted from Yavier’s phone, the government did not attempt to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that Yavier was involved in the purported crimes… In fact, the government concedes that it did ‘not submit evidence to support’ finding that ‘any [of the] substances depicted in the photos’ were actually illegal drugs, ‘any guns were used in connection with drug trafficking or any other crimes,’ or that Yavier ‘physically possessed’ any of the pictured drugs or guns.

ausalies171207The Circuit concluded that “the government’s insistence that the court consider unproven conduct—seemingly under the guise of identifying public safety and deterrence issues—further signaled to the court that the prosecutor did not genuinely believe the recommended guidelines sentence was appropriate. Indeed, in so doing, the government suggested a basis for the court to vary upward while neglecting our sentencing caselaw’s limitations on considering uncharged conduct.”

By effectively urging the court to impose a longer sentence “within a context suggesting that the [government] had in mind something greater than” the within-guidelines sentence the parties agreed upon,” the 1st ruled, “the prosecutor wrongfully undermined the plea agreement.”

United States v. Farias-Contreras, Case No. 21-30055, 2024 U.S.App. LEXIS 13231 (9th Cir. June 3, 2024)

United States v. Mojica-Ramos, Case No. 22-1204, 2024 U.S.App LEXIS 13794 (1st Cir. June 6, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

A Short Rocket – Update for June 7, 2024

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.

rocket-312767Today (and not necessarily in honor of NASA’s long-awaited success in getting the Boeing Starliner to fly), a short rocket of some stories you might have missed.

OREGON LAWMAKERS WANT ANSWERS ON SHERIDAN

Six Oregon members of Congress wrote to BOP Director Colette Peters on May 24th about the “deeply concerning allegations made by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General regarding conditions at FCI Sheridan.”

letter161227The letter, from Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, and Representatives Val Hoyle, Earl Blumenauer, Andrea Salinas and Suzanne Bonamici (all Oregon Democrats), “demand[ed] swift action to address staffing shortages, inmate medical needs, and other alarming shortcomings placing staff and inmates at significant risk.”

The letter noted that the report “raises new questions about FCI Sheridan’s certification as a Medical Care Level 2 institution. According to BOP regulations, Medical Care Level 2 institutions must be able to provide routine outpatient services to prisoners. However, DOJ OIG found inmates frequently could not get timely outpatient care.”

The lawmakers posited 15 questions about staff shortages, medical care, RDAP and security on which a BOP response is sought.

Letter from Sen Ron Wyden and others to Colette Peters (May 24, 2024)

rocket-312767

WELL, THIS IS A SURPRISE…

A national study performed by a collaboration between the University of California at Irvine and Brigham and Women’s Hospital found that at the peak of the COVID pandemic in 2020, people inside prisons died almost three and a half times more frequently than the free population.

deadcovid210914Over 6,000 incarcerated people died in the first year of the pandemic, researchers found, using numbers they collected from state prison systems and the BOP. A Marshall Project analysis of data the researchers released shows the prison mortality in the BOP increased by 41% between 2019 and 2020.

At the same time, incarceration rates dropped during the first year of the pandemic, but not because an extraordinary number of people were released. Instead, data show that fewer people than in a typical year were let out in 2020. According to The Marshall Project, the reduction in population was due to a dramatic reduction in prison admissions.

The study warned that death rate spikes “in 2020 probably underestimate the true rise in death rates, since many prison populations fell as the year went on.”

Marshall Project, Officials Failed to Act When COVID Hit Prisons. A New Study Shows the Deadly Cost (April 18, 2024)

Science Advances, Excess mortality in U.S. prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic (Dec 1, 2023)

rocket-312767

DEPENDS ON WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED

Less than a week after the DOJ OIG issued a scathing report on the BOP’s operation at FCI Sheridan—which incidentally included a finding that the facility kept lousy records on inmate-to-inmate sexual abuse—BOP Director Colette Peters found the time and inclination to praise a May 14th sentencing of an unnamed federal inmate for having masturbated in front of a BOP employee.

It seems that on May 14, 2024, U.S. District Judge Iain D. Johnston of the Northern District of Illinois hammered a USP Thomson prisoner with a 364-day consecutive sentence under the Assimilative Crimes Act for violating an Illinois disorderly conduct statute by… well, you know… in front of a correctional officer.

oxgored240607Director  Peters expressed “strong support” for this decision, with the BOP PR flack quoting her as saying “This sentencing is a clear message that misconduct, particularly actions that threaten the safety and integrity of our institutions, will not be tolerated. We stand resolute in our mission to foster a humane and secure environment and protect our employees and incarcerated people from any form of sexual harassment and assault.”

Tough words, which makes it all the more surprising that the Director failed to send a “clear message” to her 36,000 underlings about the mess at FCI Sheridan or, for that matter, the announcement two days later that a former correctional officer at FCI Milan had been charged with the felony of having sex with a prisoner and smuggling contraband into the facility.

Fortunately for Peters, the PR task was covered by Eastern District of Michigan US Attorney Dawn Ison, who said:

Every day, federal corrections officers display uncompromising integrity in carrying out their duties and maintaining the safety and security of our federal prisons. Unfortunately, the allegations in today’s indictment reflect a failure on the part of one corrections officer to maintain that standard. Sexual misconduct by prison officials compromises the safety and security of the whole institution and is completely unacceptable at Milan or any other correctional facility.

When a single inmate commits a misdemeanor, the Director is Jenny-on-the-spot to denounce what is otherwise a pedestrian (if disgusting) offense. But with over a dozen cases of BOP employees being charged with or convicted of sex offenses against inmates in the last year, you’d think that Ms. Peters would issue a press release on that, or at least that a government official’s comment could drop the “display uncompromising integrity” blather.

BOP,  Director Peters Commends Sentencing (May 28, 2024)

Ann Arbor News, Former federal prison guard charged for having sex with prisoner, smuggling in contraband (May 30, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

This Mallard Is Not A Duck, 6th Circuit Holds – Update for June 6, 2024

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.

JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT THIS 60(b) NOT BE CALLED A DUCK
Except when it's not...
Except when it’s not…

Ever since the Supreme Court’s 2005 Gonzalez v. Crosby decision, people who try to use F.R.Civ.P. 60(b) as a means of getting the denial of a 28 USC § 2255 post-conviction motion reconsidered have run into a brick wall. If the Rule 60(b) motion was challenging the underlying conviction at all rather than an infirmity in the 2255 proceeding (and they almost always are), the 60(b) was deemed to be a second 2255 motion and was kicked to the Court of Appeals (where it was almost always spiked).

But sometimes, justice’s cries are so loud that they are heard.

Roy West is serving a life sentence for a murder-for-hire conviction that now, even his sentencing judge describes like this:

Errors on the part of competent people — prosecutors, defense counsel, probation officers and, ultimately, this judge at the time of sentencing — resulted in the imposition on Roy of a sentence in violation of the law. Even skilled appellate counsel failed to raise the sentencing error.”

habeas_corpusNot that Roy hasn’t tried. He filed a 2255 years ago, arguing that “counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a causation defense. The district court denied that motion, however, explaining incorrectly that death was ‘not an element of this offense.’ Years later, the district court, “now aware of the defect in West’s conviction” granted him compassionate release, “concluding that justice and faith in our judicial system demand correcting West’s sentence.” The 6th Circuit reversed, holding that compassionate release could not be used “as a vehicle for second or successive § 2255 motions.”

Roy then filed a Rule 60(b) motion, asking that the 2255 be reopened. He focused on the “injustice to himself and the risk to public confidence in the judicial process that could accrue were his unconstitutional life sentence permitted to stand,” noting that the district court had already admitted that his sentence was wrong. The Government fought the 60(b), demanding that it be dismissed as a second 2255 regardless of the fact that James’ sentence was unlawful. The district court agreed and transferred it to the 6th Circuit.

Last week, the 6th Circuit decided that while the 60(b) may waddle, quack, and fly like a second 2255, justice demands that it not be deemed a second 2255.

“Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of his case, in limited circumstances,” the Court said, citing Gonzalez v. Crosby. “The Rule enumerates five specific instances in which relief may be warranted, followed by a catchall covering “any other reason that justifies relief.” Relief under the catchall provision may be granted in ‘extraordinary circumstances’.”

Extraordinary circumstances “rarely occur in the habeas context,” the Circuit said, “but they are not unheard of. Courts considering whether extraordinary circumstances exist “may consider a wide range of factors,” including “the risk of injustice to the parties and the risk of undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process.”

duckcow240606

Roy’s arguments of injustice, of risk to public confidence, that the district court’s acknowledgment that the sentence was wrong and that the “Government’s conduct in this case raises the specter of fraud on the court,” were the extraordinary circumstances needed to make a Rule 60(b) motion appropriate despite Gonzalez v. Crosby. The case was sent back to the district court to decide the 60(b) motion.

In re W, Case No 23-1792, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12826 (6th Cir. May 29, 2024)

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 162 L. Ed. 2d 480 (2005)

– Thomas L. Root

NBC Reports What Prisoners Already Know About FSA Credit Failure – Update for June 4, 2024

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.

NBC REPORTS THAT HALFWAY HOUSE CAPACITY INTERFERES WITH FSA CREDITS
Not this kind of halfway house...
Not this kind of halfway house…

NBC News reported Saturday what will come as little surprise to many prisoners who are counting on FSA credits for the additional halfway house/home confinement promised by 18 USC 3624(g)(2): the First Step promise of reward for completing programming is illusory for many people granted more halfway house/home confinement time by the Bureau of Prisons but turned away from halfway houses for lack of space.

Sreedhar Potarazu, who successfully sued the BOP in 2022 over its repeated miscues in calculating FSA credits, alerted NBC to nine cases in which inmates were incarcerated between two and eight months past their “last date inside,” a term that he says denotes when an inmate can be transferred to prerelease custody because of FSA credits they had earned beyond the 365 days that the BOP is allowed to subtract from their sentence.

“Even one life kept in longer is an injustice,” Potarazu told NBC. “The taxpayer should care because they’re footing the bill. You may not have anyone in there, but you’re still paying for it.”

The BOP lists contracts with 145 halfway houses nationwide on its website, and an agency spokesperson told NBC that those halfway houses have more than 10,000 beds. The BOP said more than 8,200 prisoners are designated to halfway houses, but it is not clear how many are in home confinement but supervised by halfway houses.

The BOP is not much help in tracking the problem. The agency admitted to NBC that it keeps no records on how many inmates are losing the benefit of FSA credits already earned because halfway houses are refusing placement.

“Every effort is made to review and adjust available resources within the community so individuals may utilize” time credits, the BOP told NBC News, but that “some areas, specifically populated urban areas, are experiencing capacity concerns.”

bureaucracybopspeed230501The BOP insists that “credits are being calculated as required under the First Step Act.” But NBC said, “As the law has been implemented over the years, concerns have grown about whether time credits are being properly added up and applied as case managers log the information.”

Rep David Trone (D-MD), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, complained, “I always refer to the First Step Act as criminal justice lite,” Trone said. “We need to get real savings and give people real second chances. We haven’t executed the First Step Act properly.”

Writing in Forbes last week, Walter Pavlo argued that the BOP could bypass halfway house for a lot of prisoners and instead place them directly in home confinement. “Many inmates report that due to limitations in halfway house capacity that they are not able to utilize those credits for home confinement and they stay in prison… Overall, this issue of housing inmates in prison longer than necessary, and for which the BOP currently has the power to transfer to the community, affects tens of thousands of prisoners, many are minimum or low-security inmates. The BOP has the ability, but it is up to BOP Director Colette Peters to implement change that is within her power… something she has often spoken about.”

Ames Grawert, a senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice, acknowledges the capacity problem but argues that it’s up to Congress to ensure the BOP has the funding to implement the First Step Act and the infrastructure is in place. “Implementation is always a challenge in any law, especially when you’re dealing with a system that’s as complex and with so many issues as the Bureau of Prisons.”

Potarazu, an ophthalmic surgeon, spent at least four additional months in prison after his FSA eligibility date due to an admitted BOP error in calculating the credits. He filed a 28 USC § 2241 petition for habeas corpus in 2022 seeking proper calculation of his credits and designation to halfway house by July 31, 2022, the proper date for the transfer.

runoutclock221227Potarazu’s case was finally ruled on last week, dismissed as “moot” because he was no longer in BOP custody. The Court ruled, “Petitioner’s requested relief—immediate placement in pre-release custody and/or supervised release—has already been achieved” because he was transferred to a halfway house on May 18, 2023” (10 months late) and released from custody on December 22, 2023, “Thus, Petitioner does not maintain any redressable claims and does not satisfy the collateral consequences exception.”

Potarazu told NBC he ultimately wants to see others released when the BOP is legally obligated to do so, and that prisoners shouldn’t have to assume they’re going to remain behind bars longer than they should and go to the lengths of litigation that can take years.

“Even when you have the foresight to do so, you’re still trapped,” he said.

NBC News, Despite First Step Act, some federal inmates remain in prison extra months (June 1, 2024)

Potarazu v Warden, Case No MJM-22-1334, 2024 USDist LEXIS 94086 (D.Md, May 28, 2024)

Forbes, Bureau Of Prisons Stumbles On Reducing Costs On Incarceration (May 30, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

“Failure…” May Be An Option – Update for June 3, 2024

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 WILL DECIDE WHETHER DOING NOTHING IS VIOLENT

BillyJoe240603Today is June 3rd, forever to be remembered as the day Billy Joe McAllister jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge (if you recall that 1967 earworm by Bobbie Gentry or the forgettable movie that followed it).

But what really happened that fateful day? If Bobbie pushed him, she committed a crime of violence. But what if he slipped, called for her to throw him a rope, and she sat there doing nothing? Would that also be a crime of violence? And why would we care?

We may never know about the star-crossed lovers or Billy’s inner demons, but the Supreme Court decided today that it will decide whether nothing is the same as something in the world of violent crime.

The “categorical approach” to whether an underlying offense is a crime of violence has both complicated 18 USC § 924(c) cases and benefitted a number of people wrongly convicted of possessing a gun during a crime of violence or punished under the Armed Career Criminal Act (18 USC § 924(e)(2)).

violent170315Section 924(c)(3) provides that a crime of violence encompasses any felony that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.” The “categorical approach” to determine whether a predicate offense is a crime of violence focuses on the elements of the underlying crime rather than the particular facts of the case, considering whether the least culpable conduct that could satisfy the elements in a hypothetical case would necessarily involve the “use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.”

Courts disagree about whether crimes that require proof of a victim’s bodily injury or death but can be committed by failing to take action are crimes of violence because sitting there and doing nothing is not really the use of physical force. At common law and in an overwhelming number of state statutes, no distinction is made between crimes of omission–failing to act in a way that results in a victim’s death or injury–and crimes where physical force is used. Thus, a decision in favor of the defendant could put a lot of § 924(c) convictions at risk.

That defendant, Sal Delligatti, was indicted in 2017 for attempted murder in violation of the Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (VICAR) statute, 18 USC § 1959(a)(5). The Second Circuit ruled that attempted murder (a New York state charge) was necessarily a crime of violence even if it can be committed through inaction. Under the law of some states, a person who has a duty to act but fails to do so—such as by failing to provide medicine to someone who is sick or by neglecting to feed a dependent—may face criminal liability, even a murder charge if the defendant’s nonfeasance results in death.

Most courts of appeal agree, but the Third and Fifth have gone the other way (and the Ninth has suggested it may do so as well).

nottoact240603Sal has asked the Supreme Court to conclusively resolve whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. Surprisingly, the government supports the grant of certiorari (although it wants the Supremes to uphold the Second Circuit). The National Association for Public Defense and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have filed briefs in support of the grant of certiorari as well.

The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari today, so it will be argued next fall.

Delligatti v US, Case No 18-2432 (petition for cert pending)

SCOTUSBlog.com, Supreme Court once again considers the “categorical approach” to sentencing enhancements (May 31, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

DOJ ‘Aggressively’ Hammers BOP Guard With 24-Month Sentence for Sex Abuse – Update for May 30, 2024

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.

FORMER BOP OFFICER GETS 24 MONTHS FOR SEXUALLY ABUSING INMATES

wetnoodle220906The DOJ issued a press release last week lauding a draconian 24-month sentence imposed on a former BOP correctional officer for having sexually assaulted two female inmates at FCI Aliceville (Alabama).

“Robert Smith has been held to account for abusing his position of trust by sexually assaulting an adult in his custody,” a press release quoted Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco as saying. “The Department will continue to hold accountable any BOP employee who violates their oath to protect those in their care through sexual assault.”

Assistant AG Kristen Clarke was quoted as declaring that “the Justice Department will continue to aggressively prosecute those who violate the civil and constitutional rights of people detained in correctional facilities.”

hammertime200818By comparison, the Government sought almost as much time–20 months–for former Baltimore prosecutor Marilyn Mosby, convicted of what the prosecutor admitted was the victimless crime of lying about her need to be allowed to withdraw her own money from a pension plan during COVID. (She got probation).

According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Interactive Data Analyzer, in FY 2023, only 5% of people convicted of sexual abuse in the federal system got a sentence of five years or less.  The mean sentence for sexual abuse was 213 months, with the median being 180 months.

Meanwhile, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers (N.D. Cal.) has set a June 2025 trial date on a class action suit by former FCI Dublin inmates on claims the agency knew of and maintained a system allowing officers to sexually abuse and mistreat inmates.

DOJ, Former Federal Bureau of Prisons Corrections Officer Sentenced for Sexually Abusing Inmate in His Custody (May 23, 2024)

AP, Baltimore’s former top prosecutor spared prison for mortgage fraud and perjury (May 24, 2024)

Courthouse News Service, Feds headed to trial on abuse claims from shuttered Bay Area prison (May 22, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

No Worse Federal Employer than the BOP… Again – Update for May 28, 2024

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 REMAINS TERRIBLE EMPLOYER EVEN AS CONGRESS MOVES TO BRING AGENCY UNDER CONTROL

The Federal Bureau of Prisons again grabbed the bottom spot on the annual Partnership for Public Service “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government” survey.

job210830The BOP ranked 459 out of 459 government subcomponent agencies overall, garnering the bottom score in effective leadership, mission match, employee recognition, diversity, work-life balance and professional development. In categories in which the BOP was not last–such as “effective senior leadership–it nonetheless ranked within five of dead last.  Coming in at 455 of 459 is hardly a reason for celebration.

Back in 2015, the agency was in the middle of the pack (53% of federal agencies worse)), but fell in 2016 to 36% and in 2018 to 12%. By 2021, the BOP was in the bottom 1% of federal agencies, where it has stayed.

In a perhaps-related development, the House of Representatives last Tuesday passed the Federal Prison Oversight Act, a bill introduced by Reps Lucy McBath (D-GA) and Kelly Armstrong (R–ND). By a vote of 392-2, the House approved the measure, which would require the DOJ Inspector General to conduct comprehensive, risk-based inspections of the BOP’s 122 facilities, provide recommendations to fix problems and assign each prison a risk score, with higher-risk facilities required to be inspected more often.

hr3019oversight240528The BOP would be required to respond to all IG reports within 60 days with a plan of corrective action.

The bill would also create an independent ombudsman position, The ombudsman would investigate complaints lodged by inmates, their families and staff.

“Incarcerated Americans should not fear death when they enter our Federal prison system, and correctional officers should not fear for their safety in their workplace,” McBath said. “Our Federal prisons must serve as institutions that rehabilitate and prepare Americans for reentry into society, and that cannot happen without putting meaningful accountability measures in place.”

A companion bill has been introduced in the Senate by Senators Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Mike Braun (R–IN) and Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL).

Partnership for Public Service, Best Places to Work in the Federal Government (May 22, 2024)

Federal Prison Oversight Act (HR 3019)

Reason, House Passes a Bill To Create Independent Oversight of the Troubled Federal Prison System (May 22, 2024)

Sen Jon Ossoff, U.S. House Passes Sens Ossoff, Braun, & Durbin, Rep McBath & Armstrong’s Bipartisan Bill to Overhaul Federal Prison Oversight (May 21, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root