Tag Archives: compassionate release

When It Comes to Compassionate Release, § 3553 Matters – Update for July 27, 2020

Leave a comment

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

3RD CIRCUIT SAYS § 3553 MATTERS IN COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

compassionlimit200727Before The First Step Act passed in December 2018, only the Federal Bureau of Prisons could file a motion on behalf of an inmate seeking a “compassionate release” sentence reduction under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A). Disgusted with the BOP’s chariness on seeking releases for sick or dying inmates, Congress included a provision in First Step authorizing prisoners to seek compassionate release directly, after asking the BOP to do so and then waiting 30 days while the BOP either refused or dithered.

Even after First Step passed, compassionate release was not widely used, with something like only about 150 decisions between First Step’s passage and the COVID-19 pandemic. But since the virus, compassionate release has been a fast-growing area of the law. LEXIS records over 2,750 decisions involving COVID-19 and compassionate release. And as of last week, the BOP says that 916 compassionate release sentence reductions have been granted.

Because compassionate release filed by movants other than the government is fairly new, there is very little appellate court interpretation of the statute. The 3rd Circuit, which gave us a terrible decision on exhaustion of remedies under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A) 16 weeks ago in United States v. Raia, last week handed down a more reasoned decision on application of 18 USC § 3553(a) sentencing factors in compassionate release cases.

To earn a compassionate release sentence reduction, a defendant has to make three showings: First, that the reasons for the reduction are “extraordinary and compelling;” second, that the defendant is not a danger to the community; and third, that grant of a sentence reduction is consistent with the sentencing factors in 18 USC § 3553(a). That statute, of course, addresses the considerations a district court should include in making sentencing decisions.

corruption200727Edwin Pawlowski had been mayor of Allentown, Pennsylvania, before the feds convicted him for bribery and other political crimes resulting from his shaking down city contractors (a Pennsylvania political sport, if reports from Philadelphia over the past half a century are any guide). He got 180 months, and has served 19 months so far.

Ed filed a motion with his sentencing court for compassionate release, arguing that he suffers from hypertension, heart disease, COPD, dyspnea, and sleep apnea. All of this is exacerbated by his only having one lung. Ed argued these conditions place him at a higher risk of serious illness from COVID-19 if he catches it, and noted that he is locked up in an FCI that has been badly affected by COVID-19.

The court agreed that all that was true, and that these reasons were extraordinary and compelling bases for compassionate release. However, the district court ruled that the § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not weigh in favor of release, as Ed had served just 10% or so of his 15-year sentence.

In late June, the 3rd Circuit upheld the district court in a non-precedential opinion. Last week, it amended that opinion and made it binding precedent.

The Circuit held that the district court “reasonably concluded that several of the § 3553(a) factors – including the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and afford adequate deterrence – counsel against compassionate release, as that relief would effectively reduce Pawlowski’s sentence from 15 years to less than two years’ imprisonment. We have not previously considered whether a district court abuses its discretion by denying a motion for compassionate release based on the amount of time remaining to be served in the inmate’s sentence. But numerous district courts have taken this into account in considering whether to grant compassionate release… And at least one of our sister circuits has approved that consideration…”

allentown200727The Circuit reasoned that “because a defendant’s sentence reflects the sentencing judge’s view of the § 3553(a) factors at the time of sentencing, the time remaining in that sentence may — along with the circumstances underlying the motion for compassionate release and the need to avoid unwarranted disparities among similarly situated inmates — inform whether immediate release would be consistent with those factors. Hence we cannot conclude that the district court acted unreasonably in determining that the substantial sentencing reduction required for granting compassionate release here… would be inconsistent with the § 3553(a) factors.”

Here, Ed’s original sentence was within the Guidelines. The district court found that Ed’s crimes “were extraordinarily serious, involving abuse of a position of public trust,” and that these crimes required “a significant period of incarceration.” The district court also found that cutting Ed’s “sentence to time served would result in his serving less time than… his former campaign manager and coconspirator, who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 60 months.”

Sentencing Law and Policy, Back by popular demand, another VERY long list of federal sentence reductions using § 3582(c)(1)(A) (July 19, 2020)

United States v. Pawlowski, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23431 (3rd Cir., July 24, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Congress Lurching Toward Easing Compassionate, Elderly Offender Release? – Update for June 29, 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.

COVID-19 SPURS LAWMAKERS, CDC

corona200313Last week’s upsurge in COVID-19 cases nationally has begun to translate to an increase in Federal Bureau of Prisons inmates with coronavirus. A number that had dwindled last week to 1,256 by last Thursday shot back up to 1,429 as of last night. The inmate death count is 93, with COVID-19 present on 71 prison compounds throughout the BOP system (57% of all facilities).

As of yesterday, the BOP had tested 21,400 inmates, up about 12% from last week. The Bureau is still showing about 30% of inmates tested as positive for COVID-19, and it has only tested about now out of six inmates.

The noteworthy developments in COVID-19 last week, however, were not viral, but rather legislative and medical.

Legislative: Senators Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), principal authors of the First Step Act, last week jointly introduced S.4034, bipartisan legislation to reform the Elderly Offender Home Detention (EOHD) Program and compassionate release.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)
                  Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)

EOHD, authorized by First Step as part of 34 USC § 60541(g), permits the BOP to place prisoners who are 60 years old or older, convicted of non-violent offenses, and with good conduct in home detention for the remainder of their sentences. Compassionate release, expanded by First Step, permits a court to reduce a prisoner’s sentence for extraordinary and compelling reasons, pursuant to 18 USC § 3582(c)(1).

S.4034, dubbed the COVID-19 Safer Detention Act, would reform the EOHD and compassionate release by:

• Clarifying that the percentage of time an inmate needs to qualify for EOHD should calculated based on an inmate’s net sentence, including reductions for good time. Currently, the BOP charily calculates it as two-thirds of the total sentence, not two-thirds of the 85% of the sentence the inmate actually serves. This change has already passed the House by voice vote in HR 4018, which las been languishing in the Senate since last Christmas;

• Cutting the percentage of time an inmate must serve to qualify for  EOHD from two-thirds of the sentence to one-half;

• Making “old law” federal prisoners (those convicted prior to 1988) eligible for compassionate release;

• Making DC offenders housed in BOP facilities eligible for EOHD;

• Making denial of EOHD release subject to court review; and

• Providing that during the pandemic, COVID-19 vulnerability is deemed a basis for compassionate release, a statutory change that would prevent the government from trying to convince courts (and some have been convinced) that the pandemic is hardly extraordinary; and

• Shortening the period prisoners must wait for judicial review for elderly home detention and compassionate release from 30 to 10 days. Currently, there is no judicial review of a BOP denial of EOHD, and inmates must ask the BOP to file for compassionate release on their behalf, and wait 30 days for an answer before filing themselves.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)

It is unclear whether the bill will pass, but sponsorship by a Democrat and Republican increases its odds. Hamodia reported that the bill “will likely be attached it to another bill, such as a stimulus bill or the police-reform bill currently being crafted by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.)”

Medical: The other COVID-19 major development last week was medical. Last Thursday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta released updated COVID-19 guidelines to adjust the ages and expand the health problems that could make people more likely to have severe complications. The move comes amid the rising number of younger patients and new studies that show the effects of certain conditions.

The new CDC guidelines are crucial for prisoners, because courts determine whether movants for compassionate release qualify according to whether the inmates have one or more of the CDC risk factors.

First, the CDC walked back the “65 and over” risk factor, which many judges have interpreted as being a hard number, denying any health-concern consideration for a 64-year old but treating a 66-year old prisoner as knocking on death’s door.

death200330Instead, CDC highlights that all ages could catch the coronavirus but effects of the infection may get worse as people get older. “There’s not an exact cutoff of age at which people should or should not be concerned,” Jay Butler, the CDC’s deputy director of infectious diseases, said in a news briefing.

Of more relevance to prisoners, the CDC has found that risks associated with obesity start at a much lower level. The CDC had held that only the morbidly obese (body mass index of 42+) were at risk. Now, the CDC says anyone with a BMI of 30 or more is at risk.

Under the old standard, a 50-year old 6-foot tall man would have to weigh 310 lbs. to be at risk. Now, the same guy only has to tip the scales at 225 lbs. to exceed a 30 BMI.

Other conditions CDC identified as elevating COVID-19 risk included chronic kidney disease, COPD, weaker immune system due to organ transplant, heart conditions, sickle cell disease, type 1 and 2 diabetes, asthma, dementia, cerebrovascular diseases, cystic fibrosis, high blood pressure, liver disease, pulmonary fibrosis, and an inherited blood disorder known as thalassemia. The CDC also added pregnancy to the list.

A number of inmates have been denied compassionate release because judges decided their risk factors – such as hypertension and dementia – did not match the risk factors on the prior CDC list. There is no statutory limitation to the number of times an inmate may file for compassionate release (other than the judge’s ire, perhaps), meaning that the changing COVID-19 risk landscape offers prisoners a new shot at release.

COVID-19 Tracker: The Marshall Project is running a state-by-state COVID-19 prison tracker website, which includes “Federal” as a category. The site charts total cases, inmates and staff currently sick, deaths, and new cases by date.

S.4034, COVID-19 Safer Detention Act (introduced June 22, 2020)

Hamodia, New Senate Legislation Expands Early Release (June 23)

CDC, People of Any Age with Underlying Medical Conditions (June 25, 2020)

Medical Daily, CDC Updates Guidelines On Coronavirus Risk Factors (June 26)

The Marshall Project, A State-by-State Look at Coronavirus in Prisons (June 25)

– Thomas L. Root

Compassionate Release Exhaustion Requirement Nonwaivable, Court Says – Update for June 12, 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.

6TH CIRCUIT HOLDS THERE’S NO EXCUSING EXHAUSTION UNDER COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

notime160915The 6th Circuit ruled last week that 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s requirement that an inmate first ask the warden to recommend compassionate release, and then either exhaust remedies or wait 30 day before going to court is a “mandatory claims-processing rule” that cannot be waived because of emergency.

Ever since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March, the volume of motions filed with federal courts seeking compassionate release has skyrocketed. The statute requires that a prisoner may file the motion with his or her sentencing court only “after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier…” A large number of filers skipped that requirement, arguing to their courts that they should be allowed to skip the administrative exhaustion requirement, because the COVID-19 dangers make every second count.

timewaits200325To be sure, the exhaustion requirement makes no sense. First, the notion that anyone can navigate the BOP’s three-level administrative remedy process in under six months is fantasy. The agency not only has 20 to 40 days to respond at each level, but the rules entitle the BOP to automatic extensions of time. An inmate has fair winds and following seas if he or she can push an administrative remedy to conclusion in six months.

Second, the old compassionate release statute permitted only the BOP to file motions for compassionate release on behalf of inmates. Congress became so irked at the BOP’s chary use of its power that in the First Step Act, it granted inmates the right to file themselves. But in order to let the BOP salvage a shred of honor from its stripping the BOP of its sole authority to make such motions, Congress offered the BOP a fig leaf of what is essentially a right of first refusal.

But the odds that the BOP is any more likely to bring such motions now than at any time in the past are really long. That makes the requirement that an inmate make a request to the warden and then wait 30 days little more than a pointless ritual.

No matter. Congress wrote it the way it wrote it, and anyone who recalls those hectic days in December 2018 pushing First Step to fruition should not be surprised that the 149-page bill is somewhat less pellucid that the Declaration of Independence.

time161229Last week, the 6th Circuit held that the exhaustion requirement of the statute means what it says, and that court-made “equitable carveouts” to its terms – including the excuse that the request is an emergency – make no sense. “Remember that Congress made compassionate release available only to elderly prisoners and those with “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for release. For such prisoners, time usually will be of the essence. That would make nearly every prisoner eligible to invoke ‘irreparable harm’ and eligible to jump the line of applications — making the process less fair, not more fair.”

United States v. Alam, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 17321 (6th Cir, June 2, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

6th Circuit FCI Elkton Holding a Mixed Bag – Update for June 11, 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.

THREE WINS AND A LOSS AT THE 6TH CIRCUIT

winloss200611On the third try, the Federal Bureau of Prisons finally succeeded in getting a higher court to issue a stay in the FCI Elkton (Ohio) habeas corpus/8th Amendment case, stopping for the moment the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio’s injunction demanding that the BOP identify and either transfer or release medically vulnerable inmates.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the preliminary injunction – which can only issue if a moving party can show irreparable harm and likelihood that it will succeed on the merits of the case – should be set aside. This does not mean that the inmate plaintiffs in the class action cannot win, but I suspect the BOP is betting that time (and attrition of the medically vulnerable inmates, as one after another comes down with COVID-19), will render the whole lawsuit moot before it’s done.

Technically, the lawsuit is a petition for writ of habeas corpus, addressed to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The remedy in a habeas action is release of the prisoner or abatement of the unconstitutional condition. Here, the prisoners claimed that the BOP was violating the 8th Amendment, exacting “cruel and unusual punishment” by the Elkton administration’s “deliberate indifference” to a deadly medical condition, COVID-19.

plague200406In a 2-1 decision, the 6th Circuit panel struck down the district court’s order to thin the ranks of the 2,000 inmates at Elkton (located in Lisbon, Ohio, about 65 miles southeast of Cleveland), where more than a quarter have tested positive for the coronavirus and 19 inmates have died. U.S. District Judge James Gwin ruled in April that the administration was not doing enough to protect inmates, and ordered that the BOP transfer or release elderly or medically compromised prisoners.

“Deliberate indifference” has two components, one objective and one subjective. The Circuit ruled that while the plaintiffs had shown that objectively, COVID-19 was a genuine medical danger at the facility, they were unlikely to prove that the steps the BOP had taken as of April 22 — such as screening for symptoms, limiting visitation, increasing cleaning and providing masks — were insufficient to raise the administration’s response above the “deliberate indifference” standard. The majority on the panel agreed that the BOP’s “actions show it has responded reasonably to the risk posed by Covid-19 and that the conditions at Elkton cannot be found to violate the Eighth Amendment.”

Chief Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. dissented, writing that he was “left with the inescapable conclusion that the BOP’s failure to make use of its home confinement authority at Elkton, even as it stared down the escalating spread of the virus and a shortage of testing capacity, constitutes sufficient evidence for the district court to have found that petitioners were likely to succeed on their Eighth Amendment claim.”

habeasB191211Inmate advocates were disappointed with the ruling, but I think there were three wins in the decision for inmates. First, the BOP has argued in this case as well as in other pending cases elsewhere that inmates could not proceed on habeas corpus, but instead had to use a cumbersome procedure that would not have permitted as a remedy the release of inmates. The Court roundly dismissed this argument, holding that the claim being made can proceed on a 28 USC § 2241 habeas corpus petition.

Second, the Court swept aside BOP arguments that the inmates had to “exhaust” administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. This would have required each inmate plaintiff to file administrative remedies to the warden, then the regional BOP office, and final with the BOP in Washington, a cumbersome and largely futile procedure that would have consumed six months before a suit could even be brought.

Finally, the Court held that

“petitioners have provided evidence that they are ‘incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.’ The COVID-19 virus creates a substantial risk of serious harm leading to pneumonia, respiratory failure, or death. The BOP acknowledges that ‘[t]he health risks posed by COVID-19 are significant.’ The infection and fatality rates at Elkton have borne out the serious risk of COVID-19, despite the BOP’s efforts. The transmissibility of the COVID-19 virus in conjunction with Elkton’s dormitory-style housing—which places inmates within feet of each other—and the medically-vulnerable subclass’s health risks, presents a substantial risk that petitioners at Elkton will be infected with COVID-19 and have serious health effects as a result, including, and up to, death. Petitioners have put forth sufficient evidence that they are ‘incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm’.”

tryhard200611This is a powerful foil to the government’s oft-repeated claim in opposing compassionate release motions that the BOP is adequately meeting inmate medical needs despite COVID-19, and that there is thus no need to protect vulnerable inmates by compassionate release under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1). In other words, the 6th said that the BOP was trying, but that it was not succeeding.

That may save the BOP from 8th Amendment claims – at least at the preliminary stage of litigation such as the Elkton case – but it refutes any government claim that no one needs to go home, because the BOP is keeping everyone safe.

Wilson v. Williams, Case No. 20-3447, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 18087 (6th Cir. June 9, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Are Some CARES Act Inmates More Equal That Others? – Update for May 28, 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.

MEDIA, ADVOCACY GROUPS CALL OUT BOP ‘CRUEL INDIFFERENCE”

Word that the BOP was sending Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer, from FCI Otisville to home confinement under the CARES Act has sparked widespread criticism of the BOP’s management of the home detention program.

ignore170816Cohen, serving a 36-month sentence, has not yet served half of his term. However, while the BOP has been closed-mouth about the release, it appears that as of May 22, he had served 25% and was within 18 months of his good-time release. Cohen was originally slated to go home last month, but he was pulled from the list because he had not met the BOP’s newly-ginned up minimum sentence requirements.

The Washington Post complained last Friday that the “disorganization” at the Bureau of Prisons has not been limited to Cohen. “Inmates in several institutions have complained that the agency has issued shifting, sometimes contradictory directives about who should be released, and applied the rules inconsistently… The bureau’s decisions on who gets out, though, have sparked considerable controversy. That was especially true for [one-time Trump campaign chairman Paul] Manafort, who had been imprisoned since 2018 and was serving a term of more than seven years.”

home190109Last week in Newsweek, a public defender and prison advocate wrote that “[w]e aren’t angry that Manafort will serve the remainder of his sentence from the comfort of his three-bedroom home in Northern Virginia with his family. Far from it: We are outraged that the exact same reasonable argument and urgent call for release made by the millions of other people caged in jails and prisons across the country—with the support of their families, public defenders, advocates, organizers and medical professionals—have been met with cruel indifference or derision by those with the power to do something.”

In a Massachusetts case heard last week, according to Law360, FMC Devens’ warden was testifying that an inmate seeking compassionate release had served less than half his sentence, and thus was not considered for CARES Act release.

“As the warden was testifying,” the judge said later, “the Bureau of Prisons evidently ordered an exception to this requirement for President Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort even though he had only served 23 months of a 77-month sentence. Every person and case is unique, and Mr. Manafort may have health problems that place him at a particularly high risk. However, making an exception to the policy for him and refusing to consider… and other elderly inmates on the merits will raise reasonable questions about whether justice is indeed blind.”

Since the CARES Act passed at the end of March, the number of people in home confinement increased by only 2,578, about 1.5 percent of the nearly 171,000 people in federal prisons and halfway houses when the Act passed.

The latest rumored high-profile release was the past weekend’s rumbling that former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, with 21 years left on a 27-year sentence, would be sent by the BOP to home detention for his remaining term. The widely-reported but unconfirmed release would send Kilpatrick to home confinement after about 25% of his sentence served. However, the BOP dashed the hopes of Kwame’s supporters Tuesday, when it announced that he would not be getting CARES Act home confinement:

On Tuesday, May 26, 2020, the federal Bureau of Prisons reviewed and denied inmate Kwame Kilpatrick for home confinement. Mr. Kilpatrick remains incarcerated at the federal correctional institution in Oakdale, Louisiana.

Kwame’s supporter might reasonably ask why Manafort could go to home confinement after serving 25% of his sentence, but Kilpatrick could not, especially where Manafort left a prison where there had been no COVID-19 while Kilpatrick languished in a veritable coronavirus petri dish.

compassion160124

Many prisoners are excluded from the home detention program by the BOP’s restrictive view of what constitutes a prior crime of violence and PATTERN risk assessment scores that aren’t “minimum.” Some of those prisoners are turning to compassionate release motions under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A). Since Trump signed the First Step Act in December 2018, only 144 people had been granted such release through April 1st. Since then, 268 prisoners nationwide received compassionate release.

The Dept of Justice has been reflexively fighting compassionate release motions. In a case decided last week, government lawyers called compassionate release a “Get Out of Jail Free Card” and referred to the pandemic as “a red herring.” DOJ contends that compassionate release is just judges micromanaging prisons, that the BOP knows best whom to release, and that the BOP’s COVID-19 Action Plan has controlled the pandemic and makes prison a safer place to be than at home.

The Marshall Project, Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort Got to Leave Federal Prison Due to COVID-19. They’re The Exception (May 21)

The Washington Post, Michael Cohen released from federal prison over coronavirus concerns (May 21)

Newsweek, We’re Not Angry Paul Manafort Was Released. We’re Angry Millions of Others Weren’t (May 18)

Law360.com, Manafort’s Release Helps Spring Ex-NFL Lineman From Prison (May 15)

Detroit Free Press, COVID-19 outbreak that killed his fellow inmates will help set Kwame Kilpatrick free (May 22)

Detroit Free Press, Kwame Kilpatrick denied early release from federal prison (May 27)

– Thomas L. Root

No Pants, Sneaky Releases and Weird Numbers – Update for May 19, 2020

Leave a comment

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

JUDGE DEPANTS BOP CARES ACT EFFORTS, WHILE TRUMP BUDDY JUMPS HOME CONFINEMENT LINE

Last week’s top three developments in the BOP’s response to the coronavirus pandemic were a federal court’s grant of a preliminary injunction against FCI Danbury, the CARES Act release to home confinement of President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and the BOP’s unusual COVID-19 inmate numbers.

depants200519In Connecticut, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction ordering the FCI Danbury warden to promptly identify inmates with COVID-19 risk conditions and to begin aggressively evaluating requests by prisoners for transfer to home confinement or compassionate release. The judge ruled that the FCI Danbury administration had failed to carry out Attorney General William Barr’s April 3 memo ordering the BOP to “maximize” emergency authority granted by the March 28 CARES Act to release inmates to home confinement.

The Danbury inmates — men and woman confined at three facilities within the complex — complained in the lawsuit that the institution was intentionally dragging its feet on compliance with Barr’s memo. The inmates argued — and the court agreed — that prisoner releases or transfers are necessary to decrease congestion and permit adequate social distancing within the institution.

The order gives the Danbury warden less than two weeks to provide him with a list of inmates eligible for transfer to home confinement. In the case of the ineligible inmates, the judge ordered the prison to provide explanations. While the judge did not grant a preliminary injunction on inmate requests for mass transfer of inmates to other institutions or home confinement, and for appointment of a special master to enforce virus mitigation measures in the prison, but he ordered an expedited hearing schedule to take up the questions.

The 74-page order blasts Danbury’s chary use of CARES Act authority and compassionate release. In the suit, the BOP admitted that since March 19, FCI Danbury staff received 241 requests for compassionate release. Of these, 136 had been denied, 18 were returned to the inmate for further information, and 87 were still awaiting review. The court observed that

the figures make clear that the FCI Danbury staff has, to date, not granted a single request for compassionate release—a batting average that is dramatically less favorable to inmates than the frequency with which courts in this District are granting Section 3582 motions… This suggests that the Warden is setting an impossible high bar for these requests. Alternatively, it suggest that the Warden has not set a new standard for compassionate release in light of the pandemic, but is applying an obsolete one that takes no account of the risk of illness or death to medically vulnerable inmates from COVID-19.

Danbury’s use of CARES Act authority fared no better. “In spite of the explicit statutory authorization in the CARES Act to make widespread use of home confinement in response to the threat posed by COVID-19, and the exhortations of the head of the government department in which the Bureau of Prison sits,” the Court wrote, “the implementation of this directive at FCI Danbury has been slow and inflexible.” Noting the Warden’s admission that only 159 inmates have been reviewed and a mere 21 inmates actually been placed on CARES Act home confinement, the Court said, “the criteria apparently being used by the Respondents to evaluate inmates for home confinement evidence a disregard for the seriousness of the health risk faced by vulnerable inmates…. In fact, the inmate bulletins make clear that those who have not served a specified percentage of their sentences are categorically disqualified: any inmate who has not served at least 50% of his or her sentence is deemed ineligible for home confinement, irrespective of vulnerability to COVID-19.”

Someone in the BOP must have read the Danbury order, because the very next morning, an inmate was sent to CARES Act home confinement who had only completed 25% of his sentence, and was not housed in a prison that had any COVID-19. Unfortunately for the BOP, the prisoner was named Paul Manafort.

linejump200519

Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, pled guilty in one federal case and was convicted after a trial in a second, and is about as high-profile as a federal prisoner can be. His release to home confinement in the predawn hours of last Wednesday spurred immediate denunciations of the unequal treatment of prisoners in a criminal justice system in which the wealthy and well-connected jump the line while millions of others are forced to face the spreading coronavirus pandemic with little or no hope of release.

The BOP explained that the agency “ha[s] wide discretion over who is granted home confinement,” the Des Moines Register reported. While there have been no reported cases of coronavirus at FCI Loretto, Manafort’s lawyers had previously argued that the “growing number of cases in Pennsylvania” meant it was “only a matter of time before the infection spreads to staff and inmates.” The attorneys said last month that high-risk inmates, such as their client, had to be removed from the prison before the virus arrived.

The Manafort home confinement is already being thrown in the face of U.S. Attorneys arguing against compassionate release on the grounds that the defendant has not served enough time, or that there is no coronavirus at the facility.

The BOP’s COVID-19 numbers took a puzzling dip last week. Following a tour of FCI Terminal Island Tuesday, Congresswoman Nanette Barragán, D-California, said the conditions inside the prison fall short of the federal government’s responsibility to protect inmates during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Apparently Barragán’s complaints did not fall upon deaf ears. As of Monday night, FCI Terminal Island was reporting 693 inmates sick with coronavirus. As soon as Barragán completed her visit, Terminal Island’s sick inmate count fell to 150 inmates, a 79% decrease.

Huffpost reported that “a proactive testing and segregation strategy that Bureau of Prisons officials and the Los Angeles Department of Public Health implemented late last month has seemingly produced a rapid reduction in the cases. Faced with the health crisis, officials took dramatic steps ― a lockdown of the facility, mandated testing of all prisoners, and separating inmates by their COVID-19 status.”

The BOP told Huffpost that an “aggressive testing and quarantine mitigation strategy” has led to the recovery of more than 567 inmates have recovered, while 130 remain infected. Eight Terminal Island inmates died in the pandemic.

crazynumbers200519A week ago, the BOP reported 3,385 inmate COVID-19 cases, with 48 dead. As of last night, there are 2,402 inmate cases. Eight more federal inmates died in the last week, bringing the death toll to 57. More ominously, the number of institutions with reported COVID-19 has climbed from 51 to 54 as of Sunday (but fell to 49 last night), and staff coronavirus cases climbed from 250 a week ago to 284 as of Sunday, before taking a dive to 196 last night.

The numbers seem to move of their own volition. As Reuters pointed out yesterday, “federal prisons, which typically limit testing to inmates with obvious symptoms, reported confirmed infections in fewer than 4,200 of their total inmate population of about 150,000, with 52 deaths.” As this blog has noted before, if you don’t test, you can’t count.

Rather crazy, but hardly reliable.

Long Beach, California, Post, Terminal Island is failing to protect inmates from COVID-19, congresswoman says after tour (May 13)

Hartford Courant, U.S. Judge backs prison inmates in Danbury on COVID-19 suit, orders warden to move fast on requests for release (May 12)

Martinez-Brooks v. Easter, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83300 (D.Conn. May 12, 2020)

Common Dreams, ‘Manafort Released. But [Insert Name] Still Locked Up’: Special Treatment for Trump Crony Denounced (May 13)

Des Moines Register, Ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort released from prison amid coronavirus pandemic (May 13)

Daily Beast, Paul Manafort’s Prison Had No Coronavirus Cases. He Was Released Anyway. (May 13)

Huffpost, Lockdown At Terminal Island Federal Prison Curbs Deadly Coronavirus Outbreak (May 15)

– Thomas L. Root

Hoping the Caboose Stays Attached to the Train – Update for May 18, 2020

Leave a comment

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

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TUCKS INMATE COVID-19 RELIEF INTO HEROES ACT

caboose200518The House passed the HEROES Act of 2020, a $3 trillion coronavirus-relief package, last Friday by a narrow 208-199 vote. The measure marks the Democrats’ starting point for talks with Republicans and the White House on the next round of stimulus. Fourteen House Democrats, many of whom were elected in 2018 from swing districts, voted against it. One Republican, Peter King (New York), voted for the bill.

Republicans are saying the bill, H.R. 6800, has no prospect of passing the GOP-led Senate. “It’s a parade of absurdities that can hardly be taken seriously,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as having said Thursday night. McConnell said he had spoken recently with President Trump, and that they agree another bill is probably necessary but that “it’s not going to be a $3 trillion left-wing wish list like the speaker is apparently going to try to jam down the throats of her majority.”

Why do I care (except that my bride and I could use another $2,400 check)? I care because tucked into the bill starting at page 1683 (§ 191101), is the so-called Pandemic Justice Response Act. That section makes clear that the House of Representatives is not terribly impressed with the Bureau of Prisons’ efforts so far to reduce its inmate population because of COVID-19.

The House is not alone. Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut minced no words about the BOP’s exercise (nonfeasance would be a better term) of its CARES Act authority to send FCI Danbury inmates to home confinement:

In spite of the explicit statutory authorization in the CARES Act to make widespread use of home confinement in response to the threat posed by COVID-19, and the exhortations of the head of the government department in which the Bureau of Prison sits, the implementation of this directive at FCI Danbury has been slow and inflexible. The Warden indicates that only 159 inmates have been reviewed since March 26, and a mere 21 inmates have actually been placed on home confinement, out of a population of roughly 1,000. Moreover, the criteria apparently being used by the Respondents to evaluate inmates for home confinement evidence a disregard for the seriousness of the health risk faced by vulnerable inmates. Indeed, the most recent inmate bulletin regarding home confinement criteria does not even expressly mention health risks or how they will be evaluated… In fact, the inmate bulletins make clear that those who have not served a specified percentage of their sentences are categorically disqualified: any inmate who has not served at least 50% of his or her sentence is deemed ineligible for home confinement, irrespective of vulnerability to COVID-19. Other criteria in the inmate bulletins are similarly unrelated to medical vulnerability and, at best, only tangentially related to public safety. For example, any inmate with an incident report in the past 12 months—no matter the seriousness—is deemed ineligible for home confinement, regardless of any health condition he or she might have. At oral argument, the Government suggested that such an inmate could seek compassionate release as an alternative. But that is a dead end at FCI Danbury: Of the 241 requests for compassionate release filed since the COVID-19 crisis began, the Warden has signed off on exactly 0.

drno200518The HEROES Act seeks to solve the BOP’s unfortunate predisposition to read any grant of statutory discretion to be the right to say “no, no and hell, no!” by providing that the Bureau shall (not may but shall) send to home confinement anyone who is 50 or over, is within 12 months of release, or has a list of COVID-19 risk conditions. Those include pregnancy, heart disease, asthma, diabetes, HIV, cancer, sickle-cell anemia, respiratory problems or immune system weaknesses. The only exception are people determined by clear and convincing evidence to pose a specific and substantial risk of bodily injury to or to use violent force against another person.

What’s more, courts would be required to reduce sentences for people unless the government can show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a risk of “serious, imminent injury” to an identifiable person.

The Act also incorporates a reduction of the elderly offender home detention program sentence requirement (the subject of a separate bill that has already passed the House, H.R. 4018) to two-thirds of the sentence reduced by good time, instead of the current two-thirds of the whole sentence. This would make an elderly offender doing a 120-month sentence eligible for home confinement at 68 months rather than 80 months.

noplacelikehome200518Under CARES Act home confinement, all the BOP is doing is designating an inmate’s home as the place of imprisonment. Nothing prevents the BOP from redesignating an inmate on home confinement back to prison at the agency’s whim. The HEROES Act would prohibit reincarceration of people sent to home confinement for no better reason than the pandemic might be over.

The HEROES Act is an 1800-page train, leaving the Pandemic Justice Response Act to pretty much be the caboose. While everyone considers it likely some of the HEROES Act will be approved by the Senate, no one can be sure whether the caboose will still be attached to the train when the Act finally pulls into the station.

Wall Street Journal, House Narrowly Passes $3 Trillion Aid Package (May 16)

H.R. 6800, HEROES Act of 2020

– Thomas L. Root

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

BOP Records First COVID-19 Death As Congress OKs Expanded Home Confinement – Update for March 30, 2020

Leave a comment

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

BARR AND THE CARES ACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Thomas L. Root

The Prisoners Envy The Turkeys… – Update for November 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.

PARDONS, COMMUTATIONS, SENTENCE REDUCTIONS…

At some point in the next 48 hours, President Trump will likely pardon a pair of turkeys. The turkeys will be given silly names (past recipients have included birds named Mac and Cheese), some children and White House staffers will look on, and there will be forced jokes and stiff laughter.

turkey181128“It’s painful to watch,” Minnesota law professor Mark Osler wrote in the Washington Post last week. “Worse, it mocks the raw truth that the federal clemency system is completely broken. While those two turkeys receive their pardons, nearly 14,000 clemency petitions sit in a sludgy backlog. Many of the federal inmates who have followed the rules, assembled documents, poured out their hearts in petitions and worked hours at a prison job just to pay for the stamps on the envelope have waited for years in that queue.”

Osler and the students in his law school clinic have helped people file clemency petitions for almost a decade. “Many of them are well-deserving,” Osler wrote. “It was rewarding to tell their stories of rehabilitation and hope… [But now,] most of my mail is from people who have already filed a petition. They want to know what is happening, and what else they can do. Too many of them have unrealistic plans — often, and very specifically, the plan is that Kim Kardashian West will help them. Or, as one man put it ‘I’ll take any Kardashian.’ It is true that Kardashian West advocated for Alice Marie Johnson, and that Johnson did get clemency from President Trump. But that is a sample size of precisely one, while thousands wait.”

Meanwhile, a government pleading in a compassionate release motion filed under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) last week provided an object lesson for people seeking to get a sentence cut or home confinement because of illness. Federal prosecutors argued that a claim of dementia filed by Bernie Ebbers, former CEO of Worldcom, was bogus.

The government argued that the 78-year-old Ebbers may not be in as bad shape as indicated in his own filings, citing a note from a prison psychologist who listened in on phone calls between the inmate and his daughter in recent weeks. The daughter has claimed in an affidavit that her father has dementia.

fake191126

“In the calls, he was alert, aware and oriented to person, place, time and situation,” a Bureau of Prisons psychologist is quoted as saying, adding that the inmate was asking about his daughter’s efforts to get him out of prison. The psychologist notes that the inmate has presented a much different persona when he knows he is being observed. “The conversations between him and his daughter were very different than how he presented to this writer during our last encounter on 10/11/19 when he presented to this writer as though he didn’t know he was in a prison nor the date and time,” the psychologist writes.

Remember inmates, the BOP knows more about you than you may think. And what the BOP knows, the government knows, which means the U.S. Attorney knows it too. Rather tautological, but very true.

Many inmates eligible for serving the last one-third of their sentences under the Elderly Home Detention Offender program have complained that their case managers will not even submit an application for them to be a part of the program until they qualify by reaching the two-thirds mark of their sentences. Approval may take six months, meaning that an elderly offender may well miss much of the time he or she could be on home confinement, and the BOP continues to spend $100 a day to house someone who could be confined at home on his or her own dime.

Last week, a reliable inmate correspondent reported that his case manager  said BOP Central Office had issued “new guidance” that Elderly Offender Home Detention packages should be prepared and submitted six months prior to the inmate’s eligibility for the program (age 60 and two-thirds of total sentence completed). This way, he reported his case manager reported, everything will be in place so that the prisoner can leave for home detention on his or her earliest eligibility date.

I have not been able to confirm the report through the BOP yet.

Osler, Let’s Pardon Prisoners, Not Turkeys, Washington Post (Nov. 21)

CNBC, NY prosecutors suggest former WorldCom CEO is faking illness to get out of jail (Nov. 19)

– Thomas L. Root