Tag Archives: 18 usc 3632

A Win for FSA Statutory Clarity – Update for November 21, 2024

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

COURT HANDS BOP LOSS ON FSA CREDIT COMMENCEMENT

In a detailed and lengthy decision, a Middle District of Alabama district court ruled on November 4th that otherwise eligible prisoners must start earning First Step Act time credits from the moment they are sentenced rather than when the BOP says they can.

prisoners221021As first blush, the issue seems pretty clear. Section 3632(d)(4)(A) of Title 18 says that a “prisoner, except for an ineligible prisoner under subparagraph (D), who successfully completes evidence-based recidivism reduction programming or productive activities, shall earn time credits…” Section 3635(4) defines a “prisoner” as “a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment pursuant to a conviction for a Federal criminal offense, or a person in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.”

You don’t have to be a lawyer to figure out that an eligible prisoner, therefore, is anyone who has been sentenced to prison for a federal crime (we’ll leave the other category, “a person in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons,” for another day), provided he or she has not been convicted for one of the 63 exempt crime categories — such as sex offense or using a gun in a crime in violation of 18 USC § 924(c), to name only two of the myriad of exclusions — and is not an alien with a final order of deportation. The exclusions leave about half of the people in BOP facilities eligible for FSA credits.

The BOP denied Sohrab Sharma 122 days of FSA credit, finding that he was not an “eligible prisoner” from the commencement of his sentence until he was finally delivered to FPC Montgomery and again when he was locked up and transferred for an unspecified violation of prison rules. Under 28 CFR § 523.42(a), a BOP-adopted rule, “[a]n eligible inmate begins earning FSA Time Credits after the inmate’s term of imprisonment commences (the date the inmate arrives or voluntarily surrenders at the designated Bureau facility where the sentence will be served).”

ambiguity221128The Court held that “the statute unambiguously addresses the question of when an inmate is eligible for FSA credits,” to which 28 CFR § 523.42 “adds a layer of eligibility not found in the statute [that] conflicts with its express language.”

The District Court ruled that an eligible inmate is entitled to FSA credits from the date the sentence commences under 18 USC § 3585(a) which “specifies ‘the date the defendant is received in custody awaiting transport to’ his initial BOP-designated facility as the date his or her ‘sentence to a term of imprisonment commences’ for purposes of determining whether he can begin to earn FSA time credits.”

The Court said, “The BOP must apply time credits to eligible prisoners who have earned them and cannot categorically make prisoners ineligible for such credits in a manner that contravenes the statutory scheme set forth in 18 USC § 3632.”

Sohrab’s case was sent back to the BOP to determine whether he was an “eligible prisoner” for the purpose of those 122 days, instead of being categorically excluded because he was riding a bus or sitting in segregation.

While the decision is welcome, it is a district court opinion that has no binding precedential value in its own circuit, let alone anywhere else. The government being the government, count on the opinion having utterly no impact on how the BOP applies 28 CFR § 523.42 in any case other than Sohrab’s.

Sharma v. Peters, Case No. 2:24-CV-158 (M.D. Ala., November 4, 2024), 2024 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 199823

– Thomas L. Root

Bad Cases Make Hard Law – LISA Newsletter for September 12, 2024

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

WHEN ‘SHALL’ CAN MEAN ‘MAY’

Last week, I referenced Booker v. Bayless, a strange case from the Northern District of West Virginia that found the Federal Bureau of Prison’s duty to place people with sufficient First Step Act credits in halfway house or home confinement was not subject to judicial review.

holmes240912Civil War combat vet and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., once wrote that “hard cases make bad law.” A fair obverse of that aphorism applies to Bayless: Bad cases make hard law.

In Bayless, the prisoner filed a messy habeas petition arguing that the BOP should be ordered to give him the 12 months halfway house he was entitled to under the Second Chance Act. As I noted last week, prisoners are not ‘entitled’ to even one day of halfway house under the SCA. The Magistrate Judge said as much in his Report and Recommendation.

The petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation with the District Court, asking the Judge (as the Court described it) “to take ‘judicial notice’ of… Woodley v. Warden… [P]etitioner cites [18 USC] §§ 3624(g) and 3632(d)(4)… [and] goes on to quote directly from Woodley.” Rather than declining to consider arguments on those sections that hadn’t been raised in front of the Magistrate Judge, the District Court addressed them, relying on Murray Energy Corp v. Environmental Protection Agency, a 4th Circuit decision that ruled an EPA decision was not subject to court review because the statute in question did not impose on the EPA a duty “amenable” to 42 USC § 7604(a)(2) review.

The District Court ruled,

Section 3632 — when read as a whole — imposes on the BOP a broad, open-ended statutory mandate to do many things for inmates. The BOP is thus left with considerable discretion in managing its § 3632 duty. The BOP gets to, among other items, assess an inmate’s risk of recidivism and needs, develop individualized reentry plans for inmates, determine the appropriate classification and placement of inmates within the prison system, manage and facilitate inmates’ participation in programs designed to address their specific needs, provide incentives for inmates who engage in positive behavior or successfully complete programs, [and] make recommendations regarding sentence adjustments based on inmates’ participation in programs and overall conduct… By statute, it has already been found that “a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court”… Thus, this Court finds that § 3632 does not impose on the BOP a specific and discrete duty amenable to review by this Court. By rejecting the analysis in Woodley, this Court is keeping in line with what other courts have been doing regarding placement.

The other cases cited by the Court as supporting its holding all predate the application of FSA credits and provide dubious support.

wrong160620The Bayless decision is patently wrong. First, the issue is much narrower than reading § 3632 “as a whole.” Rather, it is whether – once an inmate meets all of the eligibility requirements – the BOP has a mandatory duty to place the prisoner in halfway house or home confinement. That does not ask the Court to review any discretionary eligibility requirement listed in § 3632, but rather only asks whether – once a prisoner is found to be eligible – what a single sentence in § 3632(d)(4)(C) means.  That sentence is “[t]he Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall transfer eligible prisoners, as determined under § 3624(g), into prerelease custody or supervised release.” (Emphasis mine).

Pretty simple question… Does “shall” mean “shall” or does it just mean “may?” But the Bayless court says the answer is not for the courts to say.

Second, the EPA decision interprets a statute – 42 USC § 7604(a)(2) – that is particular only to the EPA. That statute authorizes a private citizen to sue the EPA “where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary with the Administrator…”  There is no adjunct to this in the First Step Act Instead, the operative statute for a prisoner would be 28 USC § 2241, the writ of habeas corpus, a very different animal indeed.

Under the Bayless reasoning, the FSA credit statute becomes toothless, leaving the BOP free to do anything it wants to do with the credits a prisoner has earned.

incompetent220215The Bayless decision is error-ridden, but it is largely the result of a petitioner who didn’t know what he was doing and made a mess of his ill-advised 28 USC § 2241 petition. Unfortunately, he has now appealed the denial to the 4th Circuit. Unless he gets competent legal help pretty fast, he is likely to turn a bad district court decision into a disastrous Circuit precedent.

Bad case. Hard law.

Booker v. Bayless, Case No. 5:24-CV-43, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149061 (N.D. W.Va., August 20, 2024)

Booker v. Bayless, Case No. 24-6844 (4th Cir, docketed August 28, 2024)

Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904) (Holmes, Jr, J., dissenting)

Murray Energy Corp v. Environmental Protection Agency, 861 F3d 529 (4th Cir. 2017)

– Thomas L. Root