Tag Archives: 3582(c)(1)

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

Leave a comment

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

3RD CIRCUIT GOES OFF THE RAILS ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Thomas L. Root

A Trio of Sentencing Cases – Update for May 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.

2-0-1 ON SENTENCING ACTIONS LAST WEEK

Three separate proceedings on sentencing or sentence reduction came to our attention last week, unrelated except for the possibilities they represent.

colostomy190523First, Steve Gass asked his court for a compassionate release. While doing 106 months for six bank robberies (Mr. Gass preferred using a note rather than a gun in each of them), Steve was diagnosed with a malignant tumor located in his rectal wall. The tumor was successfully removed, but along with it, he lost his rectum and anus. The procedure left him dependent on a colostomy bag and subject to what the Court euphemistically called “special hygiene requirements” and heightened medical monitoring. (Having had a colostomy bag for six terrible weeks once, I have some sense of those “special” requirements – a gas mask and a gasoline-powered power washer are on the list).

While Steve had beaten the cancer, he argued, his current condition is nevertheless “both serious and difficult to manage in a prison setting, marked neither by enhanced sanitary conditions appropriate for colostomy-dependent patients or heightened monitoring necessary to prevent secondary effects of infection or recurrence of a malignancy.” Clearly, the tumor did not affect Steve’s remarkable capacity for understatement.

The government, being the caring and benevolent organism that it is, argued that Steve had “recovered” from colorectal cancer, so his colostomy condition – which he could and would have to manage for the rest of his life – cannot qualify as the kind of “extraordinary and compelling” reason for a reduction anticipated by 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

compassion160124The district court, recognizing the government’s disingenuous argument for being the same substance that fills Steve’s colostomy bag – ruled that Steve had “shown that his physical and medical condition substantially diminishes his ability to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility. And this is not a condition that [he] will ever recover from — he will be device dependent and subject to enhanced hygiene and monitoring requirements for the rest of his life.” The court, with a gift for understatement the equal of Steve’s, thus held that the permanent colostomy was extraordinary and compelling enough.

Still, the court did not shorten Steve’s sentence. Rather, it creatively resentenced Steve to the time remaining on his sentence, but ordered Steve to home confinement for the remaining 28 months or so he had to serve. The decision showcases how the sentence reduction power can be employed with precision to fashion modifications that address the prisoner’s situation without simply letting recipients out to run amok

*     *     *

gunknot181009In the 6th Circuit, Dave Warren got a statutory maximum 120-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC § 922(g)(1). Both he and the government sought a sentence somewhere within his 51-63 month Guidelines range. But the judge was convinced that Dave’s criminal history made him “a high risk offender… an individual that must be deterred. 51 to 63 months… considering the danger this individual poses to the community, is nowhere in my view close to what is required.”

Last week, the 6th Circuit reversed the sentence. The appeals court noted that “because the Guidelines already account for a defendant’s criminal history, imposing an extreme variance based on that same criminal history is inconsistent with the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct…”

“We do not mean to imply that only a sentence in or around that range will avoid disparities with other similar defendants,” the Court wrote. “But we do not see how the sentence imposed here avoids them.” Because the district court’s discussion of whether its 120-month sentence avoided unwarranted sentencing disparities depended only on criminal history factors already addressed by the Guidelines, the 6th said, the district court relied “on a problem common to all” defendants within the same criminal history category Dave fell into – that is, that they all have an extensive criminal history – and thus did not provide “a sufficiently compelling reason to justify imposing the greatest possible deviation from the Guidelines-recommended sentence in this case.”

*     *     *

Robber160229Finally, I recently reported on a remarkable “Holloway”-type motion in Chad Marks’ case. Chad was convicted of a couple of bank robberies, but unlike Steve Gass, Chad did carry a gun. Under 18 USC § 924(c), using or carrying a gun during a crime of violence or drug deal adds a mandatory five years onto your sentence. If you are convicted of a second 924(c) offense, the minimum additional sentence is 25 years. Unfortunately, the statute was poorly written, so that if you carry a gun to a bank robbery on Monday, and then do it again on Tuesday, you will be sentenced for the robberies, and then have a mandatory 30 years added to the end of the sentence, five years for Monday’s gun, and 25 years for Tuesday’s gun.

Congress always meant that the second offense’s 25 years should apply only after conviction for the first one, but it did not get around to fixing the statute until last year’s First Step Act adopted Sec. 403. But to satisfy the troglodytes in the Senate (yes, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, I mean you), the change the law was not made retroactive.

grad190524Chad has served 20 years, during which time he has gone from a nihilistic young miscreant to a college-educated inmate teacher and mentor. The federal judge who sentenced Chad 20 years ago recognizes that post-conviction procedure is so restricted that the court can do nothing, but he asked in an order that the U.S. Attorney “carefully consider exercising his discretion to agree to an order vacating one of Marks’ two Section 924(c) convictions. This would eliminate the mandatory 25-year term that is now contrary to the present provisions of the statute.”

Since then, Chad Marks’ appointed counsel has filed a lengthy recitation of the defendant’s extraordinary BOP record. Despite this, and despite the fact that over two months have elapsed since the judge’s request to the U.S. Attorney, the government has not seen fit to say as much as one word about the matter.

Order, United States v. Gass, Case No. 10-60125-CR (SDFL Apr. 30, 2019)

United States v. Warren, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14005 (6th Cir. May 10, 2019)

Order, United States v. Marks, Case No. 03-cr-6033 (WDNY, Mar. 14, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

Will First Step Let the Holloway Black Swan Swim Again? – Update for March 26, 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.

A REMARKABLE ORDER, A “HOLLOWAY” EASTER EGG

A fascinating order from Judge David Larimer in the Western District of New York is focusing attention on an overlooked section of the First Step Act.

hammer160509First, the order: thirteen years ago, Chad Marks took a drug count and two 18 USC 924(c) counts to trial. Had he pled guilty like his co-defendants, he would be home now. But he rolled the dice and lost, and Judge Larimer was forced by statute to hammer him with 40 years, a mandatory minimum of 10 for the drugs, 5 for the first 924(c) and 25 for the second 924(c). 

Over 13 years, the Judge said in his Order, Chad has gained a college degree and completed over 100 programs. Now Chad has asked the judge to ask the U.S. Attorney to agree to let the judge vacate one of the 924(c) convictions, which would cut Chad to 15 years and get him immediate release. The Judge’s Order, citing Chad’s “extraordinary accomplishments,” asks the Government to “carefully consider exercising his discretion to agree to an order vacating one of Marks’ two Section 924(c) convictions. This would eliminate the mandatory 25-year term that is now contrary to the present provisions of the statute. Congress has now recognized the injustice of ‘stacking’.”

blackswan170206You may remember the Holloway decision of a few years ago, where EDNY Judge Gleeson convinced the U.S. Attorney to consent to an otherwise unauthorized court order cutting an inmate’s sentence, because of the inmate’s prison accomplishments and the harshness of the mandatory minimums. I wrote about it at the time, referring to the decision as a “black swan” and calling out some hopemongers who were trying to fleece inmates of money to prepare their own “Holloway” motions. Holloway had a cold fusion problem: it was elegant, even beautiful, but it was not replicable. Instead, a Holloway motion would only work when the court and the U.S. Attorney agreed to ignore the strict procedural rules against granting the remedy the inmate sought.

Holloway was a grand conspiracy among the players – defendant, judge and prosecutor – to let the defendant out of prison. I praised its wisdom and creativity, even while lamenting that it would hardly work anywhere else in the nation, where jurists like Judge Gleeson, U.S. Attorneys like Loretta Lynch, and defendants like Francois Holloway were not in the same courtroom at the same time.

But First Step may have changed all of that, in a way Congress probably neither noticed or intended. Everyone knows that the Act changed compassionate release to let a prisoner take his or her request under 18 USC 3582(c)(1) to court if the Federal Bureau of Prisons either turns it down or (as happens more often) fails to act on it within 30 days. But what went unnoticed in all the talk about dying inmates is this: there is more than one way to get a sentence modified under 3582(c)(1).

easteregg190326In computer software and media, an Easter egg is an intentional inside joke, hidden message or image, or feature hidden in a program. The Easter egg in compassionate release is subsection 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) permits sentence reduction for any “extraordinary and compelling” reason, not just illness. Traditionally, inmates have been referred by the BOP for acts of heroism. I knew of one UNICOR worker referred under (c)(1)(A)(i) who save the life of his BOP staff supervisor when the man collapsed of a heart attack. But “compelling and extraordinary” has hardly ever been used, because the BOP had to propose it to the court, and the BOP did not care to do so.

That has changed. As Ohio State law professor Doug Berman noted last week in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog when writing about the Chad Marks’ case, “I [use] the term “extraordinary and compelling” in this post because I do not think the federal judge here has to rely on the U.S. Attorney to do justice in this case now that the First Step Act has changed the process around judicial consideration of sentence modifications under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)… [The] Act now provides that an inmate can bring a request to “modify a term of imprisonment” directly to a sentencing court (rather than needing a motion made by the Bureau of Prison) based on the claim that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” This is what gets described often as the “compassionate release” provision of federal law, and most generally assume that it is only applicable to sick and dying prisoners. But, ever the textualist, I am eager to highlight to everyone that Congress only formally requires a judge to find “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” As I read this new Marks Order, I think Judge Larimer has already essentially made such a finding.”

falsehope170510I know of one inmate who already is using his case history and BOP record in asking a court for a (c)(1)(A)(i) sentence modification. I do not think, generally speaking, such a motion will work unless the judge already is unhappy with the length of a mandatory sentence. But that will hardly stop the shadier “paralegal” shops from trying to sell people Holloway motions upgraded to (c)(1)(A)(i)s.

Order, United States v. Marks, Case No. 03-CR-6033 (WDNY Mar 14, 2019)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Federal judge pens extraordinary and compelling order requesting US Attorney to vacate old stacked 924(c) conviction in extraordinary and compelling case (Mar 19)

– Thomas L. Root