Tag Archives: FIRST STEP Act

Dog Bites Man: Judge Says NYC BOP Facilities Run By Morons – Update for May 14, 2021

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 SAYS “DISGUSTING, INHUMAN” BOP NYC FACILITIES ARE RUN BY MORONS

moron210514A senior Federal judge who navigated her Manhattan-based court through the pandemic denounced conditions at MDC Brooklyn and MCC New York as “disgusting” and “inhuman” during the sentencing last month of a woman who spent months in solitary confinement after contracting COVID-19.

US District Court Judge Colleen McMahon said in a transcript just obtained by the Washington Post that the facilities are “run by morons.” During the sentencing, McMahon castigated the BOP, saying the agency’s ineptitude and failure to “do anything meaningful” at the MCC in Manhattan and MDC Brooklyn amounted to the “single thing in the five years that I was chief judge of this court that made me the craziest.”

“It is the finding of this court that the conditions to which the defendant was subjected are as disgusting, inhuman as anything I’ve heard about any Colombian prison,” McMahon said on the record, “but more so because we’re supposed to be better than that.”

The BOP responded in a statement that it “takes seriously our duty to protect the individuals entrusted in our custody, as well as maintain the safety of correctional staff and the community.”

plague200406Meanwhile, The Trentonian reported last week that FCI Fort Dix set as COVID-19 record for the worst outbreaks of any federal facility. New Jersey US Senators Bob Menendez and Cory Booker, both Democrats, called on the BOP last month to “prioritize the vaccination program” at FCI Fort Dix. More than 70% of the 2,800 prisoners at Fort Dix have tested positive for COVID-19 since the pandemic began. As of last week, 52% of Fort Dix inmates have been vaccinated.

Also last week, the Legislative Committee of the Federal Public and Community Defenders wrote a 16-page letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) and Ranking Member Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) asking for Congressional action to reform the BOP in areas as varied as inmate healthcare to compassionate release to First Step Act programming credits.

“Although the Biden Administration has taken significant steps to beat back COVID-19 in the community,” the letter said, “individuals in BOP custody remain at high risk. Over a year into the pandemic, they are subject to harsh and restrictive conditions of confinement and lack adequate access to medical care, mental health services, and programming. The improvements to programming promised by the First Step Act  generally stand unfulfilled.”

Most significant was criticism of BOP healthcare that went beyond the pandemic: “Dr. Homer Venters, a physician and epidemiologist who has inspected several BOP facilities to assess their COVID-19 response, identified a “disturbing lack of access to care when a new medical problem is encountered” and is concerned that “[w]ithout a fundamental shift in how BOP approaches… health services, people in BOP custody will continue to suffer from preventable illness and death, including the inevitable and subsequent infectious disease outbreaks.”

COVIDvaccine201221The letter also took aim at the high vaccine refusal rate by BOP staff (currently 50.5% refused), staffing shortages, and the BOP’s poor record on granting compassionate release.

The letter complains that the BOP’s proposed rule on awarding earned time credit “impermissibly restricts an individual’s ability to earn time credits, makes it too easy to lose those credits, and unduly excludes broad categories from the earned time credit system. In short, these provisions kneecap the FSA’s incentive structure and make it less likely individuals will participate in programs and activities to reduce recidivism and increase public safety.” The letter notes that if a prisoner programmed 40 hours a week, it would take more time to earn a year’s credit than the length of the average federal sentence.

The Trentonian, Ft Dix FCI has largest total COVID-19 cases among U.S. federal prisons (May 4, 2021)

Federal Public and Community Defenders, Letter to Sens Durbin and Grassley (May 4, 2021)

Washington Post, Judge says ‘morons’ run New York’s federal jails, denounces ‘inhuman’ conditions (May 7, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Odd Couple Beat Up on Prison Head – Update for April 20, 2021

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.

SENATORS UNHAPPY OVER FIRST STEP IMPLEMENTATIONS

oddcouple210219Last Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight hearing opened with Committee chair Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) and Ranking Member Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) both blasting the BOP not just for its failures in placing inmates in home confinement, but for the PATTERN recidivism tool – which Durbin called “deeply flawed” – and for what they see as BOP slow-walking implementation of First Step Act programming.

Durbin complained that PATTERN contained “stunning racial disparity in inmate classification, and that the BOP’s proposed rule for awarding earned time credit – which requires 240 actual hours of programs for one month’s credit – “severely limits the ability to earn these credits, and that undermines participation.”

“Our prison system at the federal level is failing,” Durbin said in his opening remarks, “failing to fulfill its fundamental purpose, the rehabilitation of incarcerated individuals.”

Grassley said he was “disheartened with the lackluster implementation of the First Step Act. “The DOJ and Bureau of Prisons are implementing the First Step Act as if they want it to fail. I hope this is not true but actions speak louder than words.”

BOP Director Michael Carvajal said that COVID had hampered full rollout of the programming inmates could complete for earned credits that reduced their sentences, but Grassley responded, “I don’t think that national eFSAsabotage210420mergency can be used as a scapegoat… It seems like the Justice Department and the Bureau of Prisons have failed in this effort… Even if it isn’t so, at some point it becomes a perception, and perceptions become a reality.”

Carvajal told the Committee that about 50% of the 125,000 inmates reviewed were eligible to take programming for earned time credits. He told the Committee that last year, “even through COVID, we had over 25,000 inmates complete a program for time credit.”

This was a surprising admission, in my view. In litigation, the BOP has argued that its obligation to implement the evidence-based reduction programs and award Earned Time credits will not take effect until January 2022. That position – already rejected by several courts – seems to be undercut by Carvajal’s statement to lawmakers that 25,000 inmates got some ETC credit during 2020.

Senate Judiciary Committee, Oversight of the Bureau of Prisons (April 15, 2021)

Goodman v. Ortiz, Case No 20-7582, 2020 US Dist LEXIS 153874 (DNJ Aug 25, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Patience, People, on Criminal Justice Reform – Update for April 8, 2021

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.

WHEN WILL BIDEN TACKLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM?

The most common question I have gotten from inmates since January is when Congress will pass criminal justice reform. It brings to mind the old variation on the serenity prayer: “Lord, grant me patience… and I want it NOW.”

Reform200819But patience is what everyone needs. There’s the infrastructure, the racial reckoning, and now the gun control push (which will probably prevent a minuscule number of gun crimes, but looks all shiny and robust). I am convinced we will get to criminal justice reform, but it will take a bit.

Still, there are some encouraging signs. First, President Biden’s Dept of Justice followed up on its letter to the Supreme Court a few weeks ago with a brief filed last week in Terry v. United States, arguing that Section 404 of the First Step Act covers low-level crack cocaine offenders sentenced under 21 USC § 841(b)(1)(C), “a dramatic reversal that comes more than three decades after a Biden-crafted bill helped to fuel disproportionately harsh penalties for Black drug offenders,” according to The Hill.

But Biden promised more. During his campaign, he promised to address mandatory minimums. Nkechi Taifa, a Washington-based criminal justice reform advocate, believes that will change soon. Taifa said last week that he has been in touch with the Biden administration. “With respect to drugs,” he said, “it’s only about the weight of drugs and amount of drugs that dictates the time you serve. It doesn’t matter what the judge thinks, doesn’t matter what your characteristics are. Biden has said he’ll do away with it.”

return161227Cynthia Roseberry of the ACLU said on NPR last week that Biden could do a lot with a stroke of a pen, such as reverse the DOJ legal opinion in January that people on CARES Act home confinement had to return to prison when the pandemic ended. Last week, NPR reported, “prisoner rights groups asked Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland to intervene, citing their comments about the need to reduce the prison population.”

And just today, FAMM – which has been active in urging the Dept. of Justice to reverse the legal opinion – is urging people to call the Attorney General to lobby him to take action.

Biden has proclaimed April a second chance month for people involved in the justice system. Roseberry told NPR she wants to see Biden use his sweeping power to grant clemency during the month.

The Hill, Biden urges leniency for harsh crack sentences fueled by his crime bill (March 31, 2021)

WTVR-TV, When will President Biden address criminal justice reform? (April 1, 2021)

NPR, Criminal Justice Reform Advocates Say They’re Anxious To See More Action From Biden (April 2, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Some Reform Advice for Uncle Joe – Update for March 25, 2021

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.

HOW BIDEN CAN REFORM CRIMINAL JUSTICE

Sometimes, it’s hard to remember the three things my wife wants me to pick up at the local IGA. For that reason, I have empathy for our septuagenarian President trying to wrap his head around the 14 steps that law professors Mark Osler (a clemency expert) and Rachel Barkow (former Sentencing Commission member) proposed last week that he take to reform criminal justice.

henhouse180307Writing in The Appeal, the profs argued (among other things) that “Biden inherits a clemency crisis. There are currently more than 15,000 petitions waiting for an answer, having piled up over the course of the Trump presidency… The current structure bears not one but two fatal flaws: It is overly bureaucratic and is a captive of the deeply conflicted DOJ.” It’s no secret that the fox has been guarding the henhouse – too much of clemency decision-making is embedded in the Department of Justice, the very institution that sought the too-long sentences in the first place and is thus inclined to say no to requests to overturn its initial judgments.

They also called on Biden to reform how the BOP processes sentence reduction motions filed pursuant to 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the so-called compassionate release motions. “DOJ needs to shift course,” Barkow and Osler said, “particularly during the pandemic. It should identify elderly and infirm people in prison for release — not merely home confinement — and, at a minimum, it should support their release when requested.”

In addition, they argued the Administration should make CARES Act home confinement permanent for those who have been sent there during the pandemic, and that the DOJ commit to programming that allows people in prison to earn time off their sentence after participating in programming. “During the Trump Administration,” they said, “BOP proposed a rule that would block reduction eligibility for far too many people, make it too difficult to earn credits, and far too easy to lose them. While public comment on that proposal closed on January 25, it is not too late for DOJ to shift course and propose a different rule that makes this programming—and therefore release eligibility—as widely available as possible.”

social210325Most significantly, they argued that “flawed compassionate release and First Step Act implementation are emblematic of larger problems at the BOP. Nearly everyone outside of government who deals with the BOP finds it to be dysfunctional; it’s inefficient, overly bureaucratic, and prone to cruelty.” They propose legislation to shift the BOP to the Department of Health and Human Services. “In the end, the work of the BOP is to not only securely detain people but to prepare them for life after incarceration. They are much better at the first task than the second. A shift to a department dominated by social work would help change the culture that produces the BOP’s current problems.”

Along with that, they argued, the BOP needs to do a better job of the basic “blocking and tackling in their field, and that starts with ensuring adequate staffing throughout the system. There needs to be additional resources for mental health needs, and even for basic issues like ensuring there is a state ID for every person in prison when they are released.”

The Appeal, 14 Steps Biden’s DOJ Can Take Now to Reform America’s Criminal Legal System (March 15, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Government Cries ‘Uncle’ on Fair Sentencing Act Retroactivity – Update for March 22, 2021

Leave a comment

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

A MOST SIGNIFICANT CONCESSION

Last week, the Biden Dept of Justice told the Supreme Court that it would no longer argue that the § 404 of the First Step Act – the provision that made the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA) retroactive, thus letting people given draconian sentences prior to that date a chance to bring their prison terms more in line with powder cocaine sentences – did not apply to people who did not fall under a mandatory minimum at their pre-2010 sentencing.

crackpowder191216

At first blush, it sounds rather arcane. Section 404 permitted anyone with a “covered offense” to apply to his or her sentencing judge for a sentence reduction. A “covered offense” is defined in § 404(a) as “a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.” The Act lowered the ratio of crack-to-powder from 100:1 – which punished 5 grams of crack as though it were 500 grams (over a pound) of powder – to 18:1. This had the effect of requiring a defendant to have 28 grams of crack (instead of 5 grams) before the five-year mandatory minimum sentence of 21 USC 841(b)(1)(B) would apply, and 28 grams of crack before the 10-year mandatory minimum in 21 USC 841(b)(1)(A) would apply.

Essentially, the drug distribution penalties are hierarchical. The people with the most drug are sentenced under 21 USC 841(b)(1)(A), with penalties starting at 10 years and going up. The people with a lesser amount are punished under 21 USC 841(b)(1)(B), with penalties starting at five years. People convicted of having amounts less than the minimum needed for (b)(1)(B) – which is 28 grams for crack under the FSA – are punished under 21 USC 841(b)(1)(C), where the penalties start at zero.

A number of judicial circuits have ruled on whether a person with a pre-2010 (b)(1)(C) sentence had a “covered offense” under § 404. After all, the reasoning went, the FSA did not change the pre-2010 mandatory minimum, which was zero before the FSA and zero after. Unsurprisingly, the DOJ has fought hammer-and-tong against any (b)(1)(C) defendant getting resentenced under the FSA, and it so far has won in four circuits but lost in three.

crackpowder160606Now for Terry: In Terry v. United States, the Supremes are to weigh in on the issue, whether defendants sentenced for low-level crack-cocaine offenses under (b)(1)(C) before the FSA are eligible for resentencing under First Step. This is important for those defendants, because on resentencing, the courts are not bound to merely adjusting the sentence to reflect the FSA. Instead, they can consider post-sentence conduct and rehabilitation, and vary downward rather freely. Even if this were not so, most of those (b)(1)(C) people are nearing the end of their sentences.

The Trump DOJ consistently took positions to limit § 404 crack retroactivity as much as possible, and argued in Terry that unless a defendant had a mandatory minimum, § 404 did not apply. But in a letter to the Supreme Court last week, the DOJ said that following the change in Administration, it “began a process of reviewing the government’s interpretation of Section 404 of the First Step Act. As a result of that review, the Department of Justice has concluded that petitioner’s conviction is a “covered offense” under Section 404, that petitioner is entitled to request a reduced sentence, and that the court of appeals erred in concluding otherwise.”

The letter was filed on the day the Government’s brief was due. The petitioner filed an immediate response, criticizing DOJ for waiting to the last minute and urging the Court to decide the case without any further delay. DOJ, exhibiting the heart of a bureaucrat, noted,

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, petitioner is scheduled to complete the remainder of his term of imprisonment, which he will serve almost entirely on home confinement, on September 22, 2021… Were the case not to be decided before September 22, a question of mootness would arise that would need to be addressed before any decision on the merits.

wrong210322Of course, not a word about Tarahrick Terry, whose paltry 3.9 grams of crack netted him a sentence that – had the district court been told by the government that the FSA applied – would have gotten a reduction which nationally was averaging 26%. In other words, Tarahrick and the kids would have been coloring Easter eggs at home two years ago.

The Supreme Court is unwilling to delay a decision on relief for Tarahrick until it no longer matters. Last Friday, it appointed a lawyer to argue the position abandoned by the government (which is common practice when the government refuses to defend a case). Argument had been set for April. The Court postponed that but still promised a decision by the end of June.

The Terry case has drawn a lot of interest. Senators Richard Durbin, Charles Grassley, Cory Booker, and Mike Lee also filed a joint brief, as have several major think tanks and advocacy organizations spanning the spectrum from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union. Groups of retired federal judges, former federal prosecutors, and defense lawyers, have filed as well. None of the amici favors the government.

hope160620The DOJ confession of error is interesting for another reason more based in policy. It is still too early for any comprehensive Biden criminal justice reform legislation to have been introduced in Congress, but the DOJ letter strongly indicates interest at high levels of the Administration to favor maximizing current statutes to reduce federal sentences. Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman said last week the DOJ letter “is big news that the new Administration is open to a broader application of the First Step Act here, and I am hopeful that this kind of Justice Department new thinking may end up being applied in a whole host of other sentencing settings.”

Such as maybe a legislative push for criminal justice reform, perhaps?

Reuters, Biden reverses course in U.S. Supreme Court drug sentencing case (March 15, 2021)

DOJ, Letter to Supreme Court in Case No 20-5904 (March 15, 2021)

Federal Public Defender, Letter to Supreme Court in Case No 20-5904 (March 15, 2021)

Washington Standard, Coalition Calls For Reform Of Drug Laws That Delivered Harsher Prison Sentences By 100–1 Ratio To Minorities For Low-Level Offenses (March 13, 2021)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Acting SG tells SCOTUS that new administration now supports broad application of crack retroactivity provision of FIRST STEP Act in Terry (March 15, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

Inmate Wins (Sort of) Earned-Time Suit Against BOP – Update for February 26, 2021

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 LOOKS LIKE A VICTORY, BUT NOT MUCH OF ONE…

slowwalking210226One of the marquee features of the First Step Act is an earned time provision that permits non-excluded federal inmates (and there’s a long list of who’s excluded, from people with gun and violence charges to sex offenders to some kinds of drug dealers) to earn credits that will reduce their sentence lengths or get them more halfway house or home confinement.

The plain terms of First Step said that qualifying programs completed after the Act’s passage would be counted. But ever since First Step passed, the Bureau of Prisons has done its institutional best to slow-walk implementation of the terms.  First, it took nearly every day of the two years it was given by the statute to adopt a recidivism and needs assessment system that would classify inmates according to their risk of recidivism. Then, although the BOP is a system in which virtually no inmate works an 8-hour day, the BOP decided that a day of programming (for purposes of earned-time credits awarded in blocks of 10 or 15 days for every 30 days of programming) should constitute a full eight hours. This meant that an intensive 9- or 10-month drug program that in all devoted 500 hours to the classroom would yield a paltry 62.5 days of programming credit, which would be two 30-day blocks, which would award an inmate 20 to 30 days off a sentence that, on average, would be 10 years long.

jailhouselaw160809The BOP’s latest indignity seems to be an institutional position that none can start earning credit until after January 15, 2022, because the earned-time system is to be phased in over two years, and the two years started January 15, 2020.  Late last summer, an inmate at FCI Fort Dix won a habeas corpus action against the BOP authorizing him to get credit for programs completed since First Step was enacted in 2018. Ever since that decision, Goodman v. Ortiz, was handed down, suing the BOP for earned time credits for completed programs has become a cottage industry at various institutions. In South Dakota (where there isn’t a lot else to do in the winter, even when you aren’t locked down for COVID), there are something like 34 habeas corpus suits pending demanding earned time credit.

The inmate winner in a recent decision from the same judge who wrote Goodman v Ortiz called his victory to my attention last week. It is not quite the triumph one might think it is.

Jeremy Hare filed a habeas action under 28 USC § 2241 against his warden, demanding a shortened sentence or other benefit for having completed programs since the passage of the First Step Act. The government, predictably enough, argued that Jeremy could not get credit for any program completed before January 15, 2020 (although to its credit, the US Attorney was unwilling to adopt the BOP’s position that no credits would be awarded until 2022). But the government did take the untenable position that the First Step Act was not really “enacted” until the BOP said it was, a position the Court dispatched handily:

Enactment means “the action or process of making into law.” ENACTMENT, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).  The FSA was enacted on December 21, 2018, and nothing in subchapter D indicates a different effective date for the subchapter… Thus, 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(B)(i) unambiguously directs that “[a] prisoner may not earn time credits… for an evidence-based recidivism reduction program that the prisoner successfully completed… prior to” December 21, 2018… There is no ambiguity here. As a result, if Petitioner successfully completed an EBRR [Evidence-Based Recidivism Reduction] program or PA [Productive Activity] pursuant to the FSA on or after December 21, 2018, he is entitled to earn Time Credits.

The District Court thus agreed with Jeremy that he was entitled to credit for programs completed after “enactment” of the First Step Act, regardless of how long it may have taken the BOP to actually adopt PATTERN.

humpty210226But that was the high-water mark for Jeremy. The Court ruled that Jeremy could only get credit for programs that addressed needs BOP staff had already identified for him. That could include substance abuse, basic education and whatever else may have been listed in his Program Review by BOP staff. That holding dramatically limited the courses he might otherwise get credit for, because before January 15, 2021, the staff did not routinely make such determinations.

But what really limited the reach of Jeremy’s win was the Court’s conclusion that the BOP calculation that one program day should equal eight full hours of programming was a reasonable one. Jeremy wanted credit for any day on which he might have attended a program, even if that program only lasted an hour. The court found the BOP’s calculation that a “program day” should be 8 hours long was completely reasonable.

The most liberal read of this decision is that inmates might get some credit for programs completed since December 21, 2018, but they will have to jump through plenty of hoops first, and the amount of credit they get may be slight.

Hare v, Ortiz, Case No 20-14093, 2021 US Dist LEXIS 21270 (DNJ Feb 4, 2021)

– Thomas L. Root

‘How Are We Doing?’ Attorney General Asks (Rhetorically) – Update for January 5, 2021

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.

FIRST STEP REPORT ISSUED

The First Step Act required that starting in 2020, the Attorney General generate an annual report on the Bureau of Prisons’ implementation of the various provisions of the law. The AG issued the report two weeks ago, which reads more like a hagiography of First Step compliance than a dispassionate recitation of how rocky the road to First Step implementation has been.

awesome210105Example: The AG says the BOP and Department of Justice “also implemented and responded to changes the FSA made involving retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act, compassionate release, and good conduct time.” If “implemented and responded to changes” means fighting compassionate release (10,929 out of 10,940 requests to the BOP for compassionate release denied) and Fair Sentencing Act reduction motions hammer-and-tong, DOJ and BOP have surely overperformed.

Surprisingly (or maybe not, given the political roar coming from Washington over the last two months), the First Step Report seems to have landed silently. Yet there are some interesting gold nuggets in the 59 pages of dross. I’m still reading it, and I’ll report more on it next week, but a few stats have jumped out already:

•      70% of all BOP inmates are designated to facilities within 500 miles of their release residences (but the Report does not compare this to the stats prior to passage of First Step);

•    the BOP has transferred over 19,000 people to home confinement since last March;

•         in 2020, one out of every four BOP inmates did not get any halfway house or home confinement prior to release

The most interesting tables I have seen so far are the recidivism tables. The Report found recidivism among people released under the First Step Act to be 11.3%, much less than the one-third or higher numbers usually cited. One curious finding: people who served less than 5 years had a recidivism rate of 10.9%; those serving between 5 and 10 years, 12.6%; those serving between 10 and 15 years, 13.1%; and those serving over 15 years, 7.8%.

tableB210105 copy

These stats present a strong argument about the deterrence value (or lack thereof) of sentences, a point which should be part of any 18 USC § 3553(a) analysis in a compassionate release or Fair Sentencing Act determination.

Dept of Justice, The Attorney General’s First Step Act Section 3634 Annual Report (December 21, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

It’s Not a Sentence Until It Is, 6th Circuit Says – Update for December 22, 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.

DOING IT OVER UNTIL YOU GET IT RIGHT

mulligan190430Mike Henry and an accomplice robbed three banks. In each robbery, Mike’s co-conspirator used a gun. A jury convicted Mike of the three robberies and three counts of using a gun in a crime of violence under 18 USC § 924(c). A § 924(c), you may recall, carries a mandatory sentence of at least five years (more if you brandish it or, God forbid, actually fire it).

In 2013, Mike got 70 months concurrent for the three robberies and 60 months for the first § 924(c) conviction. Because back then, a second or subsequent § 924(c) conviction carried a mandatory sentence of 300 extra months got a total of 600 months (50 years, that is),  for each of the next two § 924(c)s. Mike ended up with a sentence of  730 months (about 61 years in prison).

Mikes’s conviction was reversed because of the intervening Supreme Court decision in Rosemond v United States, which held that an accomplice had to have some level of knowledge that is co-conspirator had a gun. But after retrial, Mike’s sentence got marginally worse, increasing by eight months to 738 months. But while Mike was on appeal the second time, the Supreme Court’s Dean v. United States decision was handed down (holding that judges could adjust the underlying sentence to account for the mandatory § 924(c) sentence), and Mike’s sentence got reversed again in 2018.

By the time Mike was resentenced a second time, the calendar had flipped to 2019, and the First Step Act had passed. First Step Act § 403 amended 18 USC § 924(c) so that subsequent convictions of the statute carried a 300-month mandatory minimum only if the defendant had been previously been convicted of a § 924(c) offense. Which, of course, Mike had not.

Robber160229But First Step was not retroactive. Instead, § 403 applied only to an “offense that was committed before the date of enactment of this Act, if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment.” On his latest appeal, Mike argued that First Step § 403 applied to his case, and his sentences for the second and third § 924(c) offenses should have only been 60 months apiece, not 300 months apiece.

Last week, the 6th Circuit agreed. The Court said the plain language of § 403(b) supported its conclusion that the First Step Act applies to defendants whose cases were remanded prior to the First Step Act’s enactment but who were resentenced only after its enactment.  At the time of the First Step Act’s enactment, the Circuit ruled, Mike “did not have ‘a sentence” for the purposes of § 403(b), because his case had been remanded case to the district court for resentencing. “Only when the district court ‘imposed’ Henry’s sentence for his various convictions at his 2019 resentencing did he have a sentence for the purposes of § 403“, the 6th said. “The better reading of ‘a sentence’ requires the defendant to have a valid sentence at the time of the First Step Act’s enactment, not a sentence at some point… Therefore, Henry is eligible for sentencing under First Step Act § 403.”

oldmangrandkids201222This time, some 480 months should come off the sentence, leaving him with a still hefty 250 months (about 21 years). But it leaves Mike with a chance of hugging his grandkids someday.

United States v. Henry, Case 19-2445, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 39799 (6 Cir Dec 18, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Sentencing Sanity the 3rd, 7th Circuits – Update for September 23, 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 FIRST STEP/FAIR SENTENCING DECISIONS OF NOTE

Last week was a good one for the First Step Act.

Sentencestack170404Hector Uriante was convicted of running with a gang that kidnapped and robbed drug dealers, including several 18 USC 924(c) counts that got stacked in the pre-First Step days. On the first 924(c) count, he got seven years for brandishing, but the brandishing was found by the judge, not the jury. On direct appeal, the Circuit remanded the case for resentencing because of Alleyne v. United States‘ holding that the jury had to find facts supporting an enhanced mandatory minimum.

The district court resentenced him last year, after First Step passed, but the judge still stacked his 924(c) counts, giving him 25 years for the second one. The district judge held that since Hector was first sentenced before First Step passed, the Act’s ban on stacking 924(c) convictions did not apply.

Last week, the 7th Circuit reversed in an en banc opinion that rejects the 3rd Circuit decision in United States v. Hodge. Because the prior sentence had been vacated, the 7th said, it was a “nullity.” A vacatur “wipes the slate clean,” meaning that at the time First Step passed, Harry was convicted and awaiting sentencing. Congress wrote First Step’s changes in 924(c) stacking to “apply to any offense that was committed before the date of enactment of this Act, if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment,” making no distinction between defendants who had never been sentenced and those whose sentence had been vacated fully and who were awaiting the imposition of a new sentence. “In this way,” the Circuit explained, “Congress stanched, to the degree that it could without overturning valid and settled sentences, the mortmain effect of sentencing policies that it considered no longer in the Nation’s best interest. It ensured, moreover, all persons awaiting sentencing on the effective date of the Act would be treated equally, a value long cherished in our law.”

So Hector’s good fortune in getting his sentence overturned under Alleyne, which appears to have saved him two years, in fact reduces his sentence by a full 22 years (two years off the 7-year “brandishing” sentence and a reduction of the second 924(c) sentence from 25 to five years).

conspiracy160606The 7th Circuit last week held that the same rule benefitted Rashod Bethany. Rashod was sentenced for a crack conspiracy in 2013, but later won a § 2255 motion on the grounds his lawyer erred in letting the court use the wrong edition of the Guidelines. He was resentenced after First Step passed, but his sentencing court would not let him benefit from the lower drug mandatory minimums passed in § 401 of the Act.

The 7th said that same rule applied. The § 2255 motion vacated his sentence, so Rashod was in the same position as a defendant who had never been sentenced. The Circuit remanded the case to district cout for a ruling of whether the sentence would have changed if lower mandatory minimums had been applied.

Finally, in the 3rd Circuit, James Easter had filed for a resentencing under First Step § 404, the section that made the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. The court decided that James was eligible for a reduction, but denied him one because, the judge concluded, James’s Guidelines range did not change even if the FSA was applied.

James appealed, arguing that a district court had to consider the sentencing factors in 18 USC § 3553(a), not just a mechanistic look at the guidelines. Last week, the 3rd Circuit agreed.

While other circuits generally agree that minimum, a district court may consider the § 3553(a) factors, the 3rd said a judge must do so. “Section 404(b) uses the word ‘impose’ twice, and the first instance clearly refers to the act of imposing the original sentence.” The Circuit ruled. “Because Congress used the same word, we can infer that it conceived of the district court’s role as being the same when it imposes an initial sentence and when it imposes a sentence under the First Step Act. As the text of § 3553(a) makes clear, district courts look to the factors set forth there whenever they impose a sentence on a defendant.”

The 3rd Circuit joins the 4th and 6th Circuits in adopting the rule.

United States v. Uriarte, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 29234 (7th Cir. Sept 15, 2020)
United States v. Bethany, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 29246 (7th Cir. Sept 15, 2020)
United States v. Easter, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 29243 (3d Cir. Sept 15, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Fair Sentencing Act Courts Fill in the Blanks – Update for September 15, 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.

CONGRESS PAINTS IN BROAD STROKES…

brush200915When Congress passed the First Step Act, it authorized retroactive application of the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act in just 222 words. Two cases last week, which fill in the fine points that the statute leaves unaddressed, do so with over 5,000 words, and that number is a small percentage of all the cases since 2018 interpreting § 404 of First Step.

Still, the devil’s in the details, and last week’s decisions answer some questions § 404 leaves ambiguous. One is what constitutes “a complete review on the merits.” A second is exactly what prior Guidelines determinations by the court may be revisited on a § 404 resentencing.

Richard Hoskins pled guilty to a crack offense in 2009, making a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) agreement (a deal in which the actual sentence is negotiated, and the court must take it or leave it) to 327 months. The deal let him dodge a mandatory life sentence. The Fair Sentencing Act dropped his plea Guideline range to 262-327 months, but when he petitioned for § 404 relief, his district court issued an order saying that it believed he was not eligible, and even if he were eligible, his sentence should stay at 327 months. However, the court invited Rich and the government to submit “persuasive objections” to what the court proposed to do.

Despite the parties’ filings, the court denied Rich a sentence reduction. Last week, the 8th Circuit affirmed, despite Rich’s objections that the judge’s announcement before briefing of what he intended to do deprived Rich of the right to be heard.

On appeal, the government conceded that the district court was wrong (in that Rich was clearly eligible for § 404 reduction), but it argued the court had given Rich the review “on the merits” that § 404 promised.

hearme200406Section 404(c) precludes a successive FSA motion if a previous motion was “denied after a complete review of the motion on the merits.” While “complete review on the merits” has not been addressed before, the 8th said it “means that a district court considered petitioner’s arguments in the motion and had a reasoned basis for its decision.” Here, the district court’s final order stated that it had considered the parties’ briefs and exhibits, and it briefly explained why the court concluded that Rich’s initial sentence was ‘sufficient but not greater than necessary to address the essential sentencing considerations’.” This was sufficient to satisfy the Circuit that the district court had exercised its discretion, which was apparently the key to determining that Rich had gotten a “complete review on the merits.”

fivegrams200915Meanwhile, back in Oklahoma, when Dymond Brown was sentenced for five grams of crack back in 2007, he was held to be a Guidelines career offender for, among other reasons, feloniously pointing a firearm at another person. (“Career offender” status sends a defendant’s sentencing range into the stratosphere, in Dymond’s case to 22 years for five grams of cocaine base instead of the five years he would have gotten otherwise). Between 2007 and 2018, the 10th Circuit reversed course on the Oklahoma “feloniously pointing a gun” offense, and decided it was not a crime of violence after all (because one could commit the offense without employing or threatening violence).

Dymond filed a § 404 motion, and argued that the district court should consider sentencing law as it existed the day Congress passed the First Step Act in 2018. Predictably, the government argued that although Dymond should never have been a career offender, the district court could not recognize that fact in a § 404 resentencing. The district court agreed with the government, and resentenced him to a reduced career offender sentencing range of 210 months.

For a non-lawyer, the notion that someone was sentenced to an extra 17 years because of a court’s mistake in applying the law, but should not be able to correct that error, is both shocking and nonsensical. The government, of course, was able to argue for precisely that notion without a moment’s hesitation or shame.

error161022Fortunately, the 10th Circuit is made of better stuff than the U.S. Attorney’s office. It sided with Dymond. While a § 404 resentencing is a limited one, still, the sentencing judge must calculate the defendant’s correct Guideline range. “When the court calculates a defendant’s Guideline range,” the 10th said, “it implicitly adopts the underlying legal conclusions… Our holding [that ‘feloniously pointing’ was not a violent offense] was not an amendment to the law between Dymond’s original sentencing and his First Step Act sentencing; it was a clarification of what the law always was… If the district court erred in the first Guideline calculation, it is not obligated to err again. What reasonable citizen wouldn’t bear a rightly diminished view of the judicial process and its integrity if courts refused to correct obvious errors of their own devise that threaten to require individuals to linger longer in federal prison than the law demands? Especially when the cost of correction is so small?”

Thus, when the correction is a clarification of the law, not an amendment, a § 404 resentencing should consider it. Dymond will get resentenced with a correct, lower Guidelines sentencing range.

United States v. Hoskins, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28190 (8th Cir. Sept 4, 2020)

United States v. Brown, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28454 (10th Cir. Sept 9, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root