Tag Archives: FIRST STEP Act

Employers Commit to Hire Felons After First Step, But Much Remains to be Done – Update for February 4, 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.

HOUSEKEEPING CONCERNS, LOWER EXPECTATIONS, AFTER FIRST STEP

Now that the First Step Act is law, the question becomes what is next at the federal level and what policy innovations can state governments develop to continue the national momentum toward a more efficient and effective justice system.

Rosie190204The next order of business, according to The Hill, is for the Senate to confirm William Barr as Attorney General. Barr would be responsible for selecting a new director for the Bureau of Prisons, as well as for ensuring that the BOP accurately administers the codified risk assessment system for low-level, non-violent offenders who are eligible for release, and provide these inmates with the programs required by the Act. The statutory deadline for adopting the risk-assessment system is five and a half months away.

While the sentencing reforms contained in the First Step Act were secondary to the prison reforms that are to be administered by the Dept of Justice, further sentencing improvements are possible through the U.S. Sentencing Commission. However, the Commission has lacked a quorum since last December. The acting chair, Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit, is currently awaiting renomination by the White House and confirmation by the Senate. Until the Commission gains two more commissioners, it will be unable to adopt any Guidelines amendments. The Commission customarily issues amendments every April, which become effective November 1st unless Congress vetoes them ahead of time. Only twice in its 30-year history has the Commission failed to adopt any Guidelines amendments. The most recent time was 2017, when the Commission – as it does now – lacked a quorum.

Meanwhile, conservative billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, who spearheaded business support for First Step, has challenged a broad coalition of business groups is to hire workers with criminal backgrounds in the wake of First Step’s passage.

Koch has enlisted the support of the Society for Human Resource Management, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Retail Federation, the National Restaurant Association and the American Staffing Association. Together, the groups represent businesses that employ roughly 60% of the American workforce.

First Step made changes in the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act retroactive, allowing an estimated 3,000 people still serving long convictions for crack cocaine to petition for a reduction in their sentences. The provision allowed Matthew Charles, whose case was widely publicized in 2017, to exit prison at the end of 2018. Michael Holley, a federal defender who worked on Charles case, said that Charles was an ideal candidate for sentencing reduction, and his case was ideally positioned to be heard right away.

release160523“It was all primed for the government to look at,” he said. “We’d had all this litigation in the past year… so the judge was fully aware of his case and the prosecutor was fully aware of the case.” The government responded to the Charles petition ahead of the deadline to indicate no opposition the Charles’ request, Holley said, allowing him to get out even more quickly.

For other people, the process will take longer. The Federal Public Defenders Offices nationally have compiled a list of people in their records who might be able to benefit from the law, and attorneys in the office are reviewing the cases for anyone they find to be eligible.

Prosecutors are able to contest a defendant’s eligibility, and can argue that an individual does not deserve a sentence reduction, meaning the process, like 18 USC 3582(c)(2) proceedings, may get protracted.

The Hill, Federal criminal justice reform is now law: What comes next? (Jan. 26)

Law360, For Inmates, Sentencing Reforms Bring Hope And Frustration (Jan. 27)

CNBC, Koch network leads coalition urging businesses to hire former inmates (Jan. 27)

– Thomas L. Root

Fair Sentencing Act Retroactivity Benefits Are Broad – Update for January 31, 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.

FAIR SENTENCING ACT RETROACTIVITY HELPING CAREER OFFENDERS, TOO

Section 404 of the First Step Act, which authorizes the retroactive application of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act to people sentenced for crack cocaine offenses before its enactment, is already opening the jailhouse door for some inmates.

... had nothing on crack hysteria.
… had nothing on crack hysteria.

Prior to 2010, crack cocaine was treated by the law with a level of hysteria that made “reefer madness” seem rational. A defendant caught with 10 grams of crack was treated as though he had a kilo of powder cocaine. The Fair Sentencing Act, passed in 2010, reduced this 100:1 ratio of crack to powder to 18:1, a ratio still untethered to reality but the best the bill’s sponsors could negotiate with some Senate holdouts. Still, the Act meant that a defendant had to be caught with 28 grams for a mandatory minimum five years in prison rather than a mere 5 grams.

The other concession the bill’s sponsors had to make in order to ensure the measure’s passage was to agree that the Act would be prospective only, that is, apply only to people sentenced after the measure was enacted. It took eight years for another bill, this one the First Step Act, to do what should have been done in 2010, and that is to treat the guy sentenced on August 1, 2010, the same as the guy sentenced two days later.

The Sentencing Commission has lowered the drug guidelines twice since 2010, and each time made the change retroactive. However, retroactivity did not help guys who had mandatory minimum sentences under 21 USC § 841(b)(1) that would no longer be as onerous if the Act had passed. Likewise, a lot of defendants had had two qualifying prior cases, and were thus considered career offenders under the Guidelines. Career offenders have been deemed by the courts to not have been sentenced under the drug quantity guidelines, and thus the Sentencing Commission’s changes to those guidelines did not benefit them.

But now, a weird effect of the retroactive Fair Sentencing Act is giving hope to guys who sentenced as Guidelines career offenders in crack cases.

Logan's going to the street...
Logan’s going to the street…

Logan Tucker was convicted in 2001 for a crack offense. His original 262-month sentence was driven not by a statutory mandatory minimum, but rather by the Guidelines career-offender provision. Although Logan’s sentence for a crack offense was driven by the Guidelines rather than a statutory mandatory minimum provision, he was not previously eligible for a 2-level reduced sentence due to retroactive Guideline changes because of his career offender status.

But last week, Logan got his break. His sentencing judge ruled that Logan was originally sentenced for a crack offense, and the Fair Sentencing Act lowered the statutory maximum he would have faced. The career offender guidelines, strangely enough, are set under USSG § 4B1.1 by the statutory maximum sentence a defendant faces. Logan’s new lower statutory maximum effectively lowed his career offender guideline.

Logan’s judge imposed a reduced sentence of 188 months, the low end of the new guidelines range, and let him walk out of the courtroom a free man (or as free as supervised release lets one be). Notably, the government in this case conceded that the First Step Act authorized the reduced sentence (although, being prosecutors to the end, the AUSAs urged the court to exercise its discretion not to reduce Logan’s original sentence).

Order, United States v. Logan, Case No. 3:00-cr-00246 (S.D. Iowa, Jan. 23)

– Thomas L. Root

First Step 2.0 Already Being Planned – Update for January 30, 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.

NEXT STEP ACT ALREADY IN WORKS

The bipartisan team that rallied House support for the First Step Act is drafting new legislation to clean up the existing criminal records of nonviolent drug offenders, a centerpiece of their efforts to pass further reforms.

Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York) and Douglas Collins (R-Georgia) are looking at how to expunge the criminal records of people convicted of drug crimes before minimum sentencing requirements were reduced, to restore their eligibility to apply for certain jobs. Nationally, one out of five jobs requires some kind of license, which excludes just about everyone with a prior felony. “’What is being contemplated is removing the stain that has been put on their life’s journey as a result of a nonviolent drug offense, often occurring at a very adolescent stage of their life,” Jeffries said.

jeffries-collinsA190130The bipartisan legislation could form the basis for what Collins said might be called a ”Next Step Act,” to follow up on the pair’s successful efforts to pass a First Step last year. Both lawmakers hope to continue their established partnership with President Donald Trump’s son in law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, with whom they worked on last year’s criminal justice reforms.

Jeffries said he also hopes to address marijuana as part of any future criminal justice package. “There’s a growing number of conservatives, libertarians and Republicans who are in agreement with Democrats, who believe that we should at least take a hard look at descheduling marijuana,” he said. “[It] shouldn’t actually be that controversial, and it’s consistent with Republican principles of states’ rights and federalism.”

Washington Post, Next step in criminal justice reform could target jobs for ex-convicts, marijuana law (Jan. 17, 2019)

Chicago Tribune, Bipartisan authors of federal sentencing reform have new goal (Jan. 23)

– Thomas L. Root

Err in Haste… Congress Screws Up First Step Implementation – Update for January 29, 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.

TRYING TO FIX FIRST STEP’S 54-DAY FIASCO

finemess190129The expanded good-conduct time credit in the First Step Act – which increased the number of days awarded a federal inmate for good behavior from 47 to 54 days a year, retroactive to the beginning of an inmate’s current sentence – was intended by Congress to be immediately effective, The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the change would immediately release about 4,000 people.

The good-time fix, however, was inexplicably tucked into the earned-time credit section of the Act. A subsection of that provision, which was quite reasonably intended to delay implementation of the earned-time program until the Attorney General adopted a risk-assessment tool to use in order to measure its effectiveness, had the completely unintended effect of delaying award of the additional good-time credit as well. Thus, increased good-time will not be until July 19.

The Washington Examiner reported last Friday that “three sources who work closely with lawmakers and administration officials say it’s their understanding that the White House is looking for an administrative fix.”

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone reportedly met with advocates in mid-January to discuss the issue. “I think he really understood the intent,” said a person with direct knowledge of the meeting. “I think they understood this was a key provision… This was a key part of legislative negotiations.”

For people serving decades, seven additional days means release months early. The increased “good time” expansion and the extension of the Fair Sentencing Act were intended to be retroactive, unlike everything else in the bill.

Mybad190129It quickly became clear, however, that an immediate award of the extra seven days per year was not happening. “I think it was just an oversight,” said Kevin Ring, president of FAMM. “People were focused on making sure the good time got increased and that it was retroactive. It ended up getting put in the section with ‘earned time.’”

A few fixes are being discussed. The easiest would be for the White House to order the Justice Department to apply the 54 days of “good time” credit immediately. Other fixes would require legislation — either a unanimous consent motion or a spending bill provision — but legislative gridlock amid a partial government shutdown makes neither likely.

“I don’t think it’s something that gets cleared up quickly,” said Jessica Sloan of #cut50, one of the people at the White House meeting. “I’m hopeful the White House will issue some sort of directive to the DOJ, which will issue a directive to BOP, but there are a lot of administrative steps there.”

Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman said last weekend in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog that he “had very little “faith” in anyone inside the Beltway fixing things these days, but it is encouraging that two very effective advocates had the opportunity to address the White House Counsel about potential fixes.”

Washington Examiner, Drafting error stalls inmate release under Trump plan (Jan. 25)

– Thomas L. Root

First Step Act Beneficiaries By The Numbers – Update for January 25, 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.

SENTENCING COMMISSION RELEASES FIRST STEP CHECKLIST, IMPACT STUDY

imageThe Romans had a phrase for it: “Cui bono?” Last week, the U.S. Sentencing Commission tried to answer that question about the First Step Act.

The extra seven days of good time granted by the Act will benefit the most inmates, about 142,500 federal prisoners (79% of the 180,390 federal prison population), excluding only people with life sentences or sentences of less than a year and a day (which are ineligible for good time under 18 USC 3624[b][1]). The earned time credit the Act awards for completing programs that reduce recidivism is in second place. The Commission estimates that it will benefit about 106,000 eligible inmates (about 59% of the population).

The retroactive Fair Sentencing Act provision of the First Step Act only touches about 2,660 inmates, but it has an outsized effect on racial disparity: 90% of whom are black.

elderly180517The elderly offender home detention program expanded by the Act has 1,880 inmates who are currently eligible (the right age, right offenses and right amount of time served). Of course, the EOHD program, unlike the other First Step programs, will see an influx of additional inmates who reach the right age and service of sentence.

The Commission also issued an 8-page fact sheet answering questions about implementing the sentencing portions of First Step. In it, the USSC notes that First Step requires no changes in the Guidelines (which is a good thing because the 7-member Commission is down to only two voting members, leaving it unable to approve any new Guidelines until the Senate approves additional commissioners).

USSC, Sentence and Prison Impact Estimate Summary (Jan. 18)

USSC, ESP Insider Express: First Step Act (Jan. 18)

– Thomas L. Root

First Step Rollout Already Behind Schedule? – Update for January 21, 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.

COULD SHUTDOWN MESS WITH FIRST STEP ACT IMPLEMENTATION?

endshutdown190122The First Step Act sets July 19 as the hard deadline for adoption of a risk assessment system. That system is a precondition to the Bureau of Prisons beginning to grant earned time credit to inmates for programs that reduce recidivism.

But an even earlier deadline falls today, by which time the Dept. of Justice was to establish the committee tasked with creating the risk assessment system. The New York Times reported last week, however, that the Jan. 21 deadline would not be met, and no one still working at DOJ despite the shutdown will say when the committee will be formed.

No one is sure what happens if the risk assessment system is not in place by July 19. On the one hand, the deadline is written into the statute, so DOJ cannot ask for an extension. On the other hand, it is not clear who could sue or whether a court could effectively compel DOJ to meet the deadline.

Meanwhile, confusion continues to reign over the delay of the extra seven days of good time until July 19. “It absolutely makes no sense,” said Jack Donson, a former BOP case manager told the Times. Donson said the recalculation of good time should not have been linked to the new risk assessment system.

A staff member for Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that the good-time effective date was inherited from a version of First Step passed by the House, and that Grassley was aware that questions had been raised about it.

While the staff member “wouldn’t necessarily characterize it as a drafting error,” he said Grassley “definitely has his eye on it and intends to keep working with the administration on a way forward.”

closed190122Meanwhile, the federal courts, which previously said their funds would run out on Jan. 18, announced last week that cost-cutting had extended the drop-dead date to at least Friday, Jan. 25. However, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts warned that “at some point in the near future, existing funds will run out if new appropriated funds do not become available.”

If that happens, the courts will operate under the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 USC 1341, which limits them to mission-critical work. In response to DOJ requests, some federal courts have issued orders suspending or postponing civil cases in which the government is a party, and others have declined to do so.

Criminal cases are expected to proceed uninterrupted.

New York Times, Shutdown Threatens to Delay Criminal Justice Reforms Signed Into Law by Trump (Jan. 16)

Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Judiciary to Continue Funded Operations Until Jan. 25 (Jan. 16)

– Thomas L. Root

Err in Haste… Congress Goofs, Inmates Keep Doing Time – Update for January 16, 2019

Leave a comment

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

54 DAYS GOOD TIME DELAY IS A “MISTAKE”

screwup190116The BOP let inmates know last week that it does not have to recalculate good time to give inmates the extra seven days approved by the First Step Act until the Attorney General adopts a new risk assessment system, relying on Sec. 102(b)(2) of the Act.

First Step gives the AG 210 days from the date the bill was signed to complete the risk assessment. That deadline, and the latest date for BOP crediting the good time, is July 19, 2019.

A Chicago halfway house resident lost his bid for immediate release in District Court last week. The Northern District of Illinois court said the defendant, whose current out date is next month but who would already have been out with the additional time, “cannot obtain relief. Section 102(b) of the First Step Act states that the amendment to section 3624(b) does not take effect until after the Attorney General completes and releases the needs assessment system established under section 101(a) of the Act. The Attorney General is given up to 210 days to implement the risk and needs assessment system.”

“This court is not unsympathetic to the apparent inequity of petitioner’s situation,” wrote U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman. “This court, however, is obligated to apply the law as it is written.”

Reuters reported last week that the delay in increased good time resulted from as drafting mistake. First Step activists said the law, as drafted, confused good-time credits, which reduce a sentence for compliance with BOP rules, with earned-time credits, which was to be awarded for completing approved programming. Sec. 102(b)(2) mistakenly said that new rules on good-time credits could not kick in until the AG finishes a risk-assessment process which relates to the earned-time credits, but has nothing to do with good-time credits.

Several First Step supporter told Reuters their groups are working with the White House to find a work-around, although a legislative fix may be needed. The groups are considering trying to tuck a fix into a broader spending bill for action by Congress.

annette190116Meanwhile, Annette Bongiorno, a former Bernie Madoff associate, did not fare much better. We reported on December 31 that her lawyers had petitioned her sentencing court to send her to home confinement under the Elderly Offender Home Detention program as soon as she hit her two-thirds date. Last week, her sentencing judge denied the motion, noting that which Bongiorno appears to be eligible for home confinement in February, “the statute does not provide for direct application to the Court for the relief she seeks. Instead, the initial determination as to Mrs. Bongiorno’s eligibility for release to home confinement, which is discretionary, rests with the… BOP.”

Order, Shah v. Hartman, Case No. 18 C 7990 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2019)

Reuters, Error in U.S. prisons law means well-behaved inmates wait longer for release (Jan. 9)

– Thomas L. Root

Nuts and Bolts of Elderly Home Detention – Update for January 9, 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.

ROGER, DODGER, INMATE CODGER – THE ABCS OF THE EOHD

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the Elderly Offender Home Detention program approved by the First Step Act, judging from the questions still piling up in our email.

elderly190109• Where did EOHD come from? Back in 2009, the Second Chance Act of 2007 authorized the BOP to run a two-year pilot program to permit non-violent elderly offenders (65 years and older) to go to home confinement for the remainder of their sentences if they had been down 10 years and done 75% of their sentences. The program was tested at only one facility (FCI Elkton) for a two-year period.

It did not work that well, because the combination 10-year minimum and 75% seemed to eliminate just about everyone who otherwise would otherwise had been eligible.

• What is it now? The First Step Act has now re-established the program, calling it the Elderly Offender Home Detention program. The new EOHD would apply ay every BOP facility – not just one – and be extended to all nonviolent elderly offenders who had completed 66.67% (no longer 75%) of their sentences. The 10-year minimum service of sentence was eliminated.

Under the program, an eligible inmate could go to home confinement at 66.67% of the whole sentence, and be released from home confinement to supervised release at 85% of his or her sentence.

home190109• What are the requirements? Most of the requirements have not changed from the pilot program. Anyone seriously thinking about applying for EOHD should read 34 USC 60541(g). Among other requirements, the eligible offender has to be 60 years old or older, cannot ever have been convicted of a crime of violence or sex offense, have served 66.67% of “the term of imprisonment to which the offender was sentenced,” have never tried to escape, whose home detention will save the BOP money, and who the BOP determines “to be at no substantial risk of engaging in criminal conduct or of endangering any person or the public if released to home detention.”

• It is 66.67% of what? Our reading of the statute suggests that the two-thirds must be of the whole sentence, not the sentence minus good-time, or minus earned time credits, or even minus RDAP. In fact, RDAP would have to be restructured to let eligible elderly offenders take it early in order to get any meaningful EOHD time.

• Can the BOP adopt other rules on how to run EOHD? We suspect that the BOP will treat it like it treats direct-to-home detention now. The inmate has to have a home that passes US Probation Office inspection, have the landline phone rig needed for monitoring, and have health insurance. The BOP has a lot of leeway in administering the program, and not everyone who is eligible will necessarily be permitted to go home.

When the BOP ran the program at Elkton, there was no program statement, because the program was pretty ad hoc and loosey-goosey. The BOP will probably issue a program statement now, detailing how it intends to administer the program.

One final caveat: the EOHD will not necessarily be available at all institutions. The Attorney General retains the authority to designate only certain institutions at which the EOHD will operate. However, if only somer and not others are designated, it will usher in a land-rush of inmates seeking to get to certain prisons and not others in order to benefit from the Act. If too few institutions are designated, Congress may be irate that the BOP is not using a tool available to it to reduce its costs, especially the horrific cost of elderly medical and nursing care.

denied190109I have already heard of one institution where a case manager confidently told an inmate that the warden would never approve any EOHD participants. The BOP will have a lot of discretion as to how it runs EOHD, but it will not have the discretion to NOT run it.

One benefit inmates have with EOHD may be judicial review. Under 18 USC 3625, virtually all of the BOP’s programs – halfway house, the anti-recidivism programming and placement, for example – are immune from the usual Administrative Procedure Act lawsuits an inmate could otherwise bring under 5 USC 706. However, the EOHD is authorized by a different section – in Title 34 – and appears to be subject to APA challenge if the BOP gets too arbitrary or deviates too far from the statute. That ought to give inmates a bit more leverage than they have with other BOP actions.

Elderly Offender Home Detention, 34 USC 60541(g) (as amended by the First Step Act)

– Thomas L. Root

Reading First Step A Little More Carefully – Update for January 3, 2019

Leave a comment

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

SOME EASTER EGGS – NOT ALL GOOD – IN THE FIRST STEP BILL

software_easter_eggIn computer software and media, an Easter egg is an intentional inside joke, hidden message or image, or secret feature of a work. It is usually found in a computer program or video game.

The First Step Act text raced through the Senate and House, and was signed by the President, in four days. It was difficult to be sure that the available version of the Act – and there had been at least three even before the Senate passed a fourth on Dec. 18 – was the latest.

The final version has a few tweaks, previously unnoticed revisions and poorly-drafted parts that were finally noticed last week. Some are confusing, a few are interesting, but others are  rather ugly.

The good: It has always been gospel for people seeking reductions in sentence under 18 USC 3582(c)(2) because of the changed drug tables that Guidelines career offenders and people with 851 enhancements were blocked from the benefits of the reductions. Guidelines career offenders have their offense levels set on a scale of 12 up to 3, depending on the statutory maximum sentence of the underlying offense. A change in drug quantity Guidelines did not affect the stat maximum, so career offenders’ offense levels did not change.

retro160110The retroactivity of the Fair Sentencing Act – part of First Step – changes the statutory maximum. It used to be that 5 grams of crack got you 5 to 40 years. Now, anything under 28 grams is 0-20 years. More than 50 grams got you 10-life; now 50 grams is 5-40, and 10-life only starts after 280 grams. The effect for a lot of guys, who were convicted of “at least 5 grams” or “at least 50 grams,” is to drop the statutory maximums, and therefore reduce their career offender ranges from 37 to 34 or 34 to 32.

Because the retroactivity of the Fair Sentencing Act requires that a court “impose a reduced sentence as if… the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010… [was] in effect at the time the covered offense was committed,” it appears that Guidelines career offenders with the right numbers in their indictments may be entitled to lower sentences, as well as the straight USSG 2D1.1 crack guidelines people.

The same stepdown from 21 USC 841(b)(1)(A) to (b)(1)(B), and from (b)(1)(B) to (b)(1)(C) may well let people with 851 enhancements get lower sentences as well.

narrow190103That’s a great gift. But not so great is language in First Step Sec. 102(b)(2) that suggests that the extra seven days a year does not have to be applied by BOP until late July 2019, when the Attorney General is required to have a risk assessment program adopted. The interpretation of the subsection is capable of being interpreted to applying only to earned-time credits, but the BOP has a history of interpreting statutory language to the inmates’ detriment (see the 2010 Supreme Court Barber v. Thomas decision).

Perhaps even worse is the apparent squishiness of the Elderly Offender Home Detention program. People who think the EOHD is a brand new bauble are mistaken: First Step is not writing on a clean slate.

The definition of “elderly offender,” unchanged (except for dropping the age requirement to 60), has been around since 2008 in The Second Chance Act. Second Chance authorized an EOHD pilot program of two years’ duration, run at a single institution. The terms are set out at 34 USC 60541(g), and should be reviewed by any inmate interested in the program.

The parts of the definition of an “eligible elderly offender” which were not changed by First Step give the BOP a lot of discretion. For example, if the BOP does not “determine that release to home detention… will result in a substantial net reduction of costs to the Federal Government,” the prisoner would be deemed ineligible. 34 USC 60541(g)(5)(A)(vi). This could exclude some people at the younger end of the age range who are especially skilled at a UNICOR job or some other maintenance position valued by the particular institution.

ripper190103Likewise, to be eligible, an offender must be “determined by the Bureau of Prisons to be at no substantial risk of engaging in criminal conduct or of endangering any person or the public if released to home detention.” 34 USC 60541(g)(5)(A)(vii). This criterion makes perfect sense in a perfect world: who wants Jack D. Ripper to return to the house next door?  But in the real world, this provision grants the BOP virtually unbridled discretion. If it predicts that a drug defendant has a substantial risk of peddling some more pot, or a fraudster will likely run a three-card monte game from his front porch, what judge would ever rule otherwise? What the subsection really says is that the BOP can send who its lower-level staff want to send and deny those who staff want to deny.

 Parenthetically, I witnessed the operation of the 2-year pilot program, run at FCI Elkton in Lisbon, Ohio. In one memorable denial, a 79-year old man, 10 years into a 15-year marijuana sentence – who had had multiple strokes, suffered from heart disease and hearing loss, and had gone through multiple chemotherapy treatments for unrelated cancer, was denied the pilot EOHD program because of violence in his criminal history. It seemed that in 1949, as a hot-blooded youth, he had robbed a corner grocery store.

“You’re a danger,” the Elkton case manager told the minimum-security septuagenarian, “based on your robbery conviction” more than a half-century before. And that was that.

The BOP did not release a guiding program statement for the Elkton EOHD experiment, just a one-page release for prisoners. One can only hope for more detail, more consistency, and more common sense from the full-blown EOHD.

Enrolled Bill, First Step Act of 2018 (Dec. 21)

BOP, Elderly Offender Home Detention Pilot Program (Feb. 5, 2009)

– Thomas L. Root

Inmate Celebs Jump on First Step Act – Update for January 2, 2019

Leave a comment

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

IT’S WHO YOU KNOW…

A few connected people did not let the ink dry on President Trump’s signature before deploying their lawyers to make hay out of the First Step Act’s modification to the compassionate release provisions of 18 USC § 3582(c)(1).

whoknows190102On the last Friday of 2018, a federal judge reduced former Birmingham, Alabama, mayor Larry Langford’s sentence for corruption to time served, a day after Ebony magazine reported that he was near death and being denied release. He had served a little more than half of a 15-year sentence for bribery and corruption, but the family and friends in Congress were able to convince the U.S. Attorney and BOP to move for his compassionate release.

U.S. District Court Judge Scott Coogler ordered that Langford “shall be released from the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons as soon as his medical condition permits, the release plan is implemented, and travel arrangements can be made.”

iknowyou190102Meanwhile, lawyers for Annette Bongiorno, Bernie Madoff’s former secretary, raced into court a day after First Step became law to ask her judge to order the BOP to send her to home confinement on March 19, the day on which she will have served two-thirds of her sentence. Not content to have the BOP process her Elderly Offender Home Detention program request (probably a wise idea), her lawyers want Judge Laura Taylor Swain – who is already on record favoring Bongiorno’s home confinement – to tell the BOP to get it done.

The government has not yet weighed in on Bongiorno’s request, which was picked up in the national media as soon as it was filed (no doubt because the defendant’s lawyers made sure of the publicity.)

The Birmingham News, Larry Langford will be freed after sentence reduction (Dec. 28)

ABC News, Bernie Madoff’s secretary wants to use new Trump law to get out of jail early (Dec. 25)

United States v. Bongiorno, Case No. 10-cr-228, Letter Motion (Dec. 22)

– Thomas L. Root