Tag Archives: FSA credits

Thanksgiving Week: Stuffing Goes With Turkey – Update for November 26, 2024

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

STUFFING

Walter Pavlo reported in Forbes last weekend that the Bureau of Prison – despite being told by Congress in the First Step Act almost six years ago to expand halfway house capacity to accommodate prisoners using FSA credits, has increased contracted-for halfway house bed space by a paltry 1% in the last 6 years.

stuffedturkey241126The BOP Office of Public Affairs reported that as of January 1, 2019, the BOP was contracting for 10,408 halfway house beds. As of two months ago, the BOP contracted for 10,553 halfway house beds. Pavlo wrote that “the BOP is now telling some halfway house providers… that they are canceling some solicitations for additional capacity because of ‘budgetary and staffing considerations.’”

Pavlo reported, “Many prisoners and their families are telling me that case managers are telling them that there is no room at halfway houses, and the result is that many minimum security prisoners spend a greater portion of their sentence in prison rather than in the community… BOP notes that ‘many of the unfilled beds in a halfway house are at locations that are hard to fill or are outside of the release residence area of individuals requesting community confinement placement’.”

So the Bureau argues to prisoners that the halfway houses are stuffed without room for people, who therefore lose the benefit of their FSA credits. Pavlo says that’s a myth. He and former BOP Director Hugh Hurwitz surveyed halfway houses and BOP usage of them, finding that only 82% of the BOP’s contracted halfway house capacity is being used. What’s more, the halfway houses have even more space open than that, space the halfway houses would like to fill but is not under BOP contract.

halfwayhouse241126“BOP could look to modify those existing contracts to increase the number of beds available,” Pavlo wrote.

For now, it appears that the halfway house shortage has less to do with stuffed beds and more to do with BOP unwillingness to fill them.

Forbes, Bureau of Prisons Halfway Houses Must Change Due to First Step Act (November 23, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

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

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

COURT HANDS BOP LOSS ON FSA CREDIT COMMENCEMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Thomas L. Root

Home Confinement Authority Gathers Dust – Update for November 8, 2024

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

HOME CONFINEMENT AUTHORITY AS ‘SHELFWARE’

shelfware241108ABack in the days of the dinosaurs, when computer programs came on CD-ROMs or (even more antediluvian), on stacks of mini-floppies, many of us were familiar with the concept of “shelfware.”

Writing in Forbes last week, Walter Pavlo reminded us that the Federal Bureau of Prisons has its own version of “shelfware,” a provision in 18 USC § 3624(g)(3) that lets prisoners spend their First Step Act credits – days earned for successful completion of programming under 18 USC § 3632 – on sentence reduction, halfway house or home confinement.

When a prisoner has earned enough FSA credits to where his or her remaining sentence equals the number of FSA credits earned, § 3624(g) requires that the BOP use those credits for one or more of the three options provided. The BOP’s practice is to first apply credits to sentence reduction: up to 365 credits can be used to reduce a sentence by a like number of days. The BOP has been diligent about this, and prisoners have been able to watch their sentences shorten on a monthly basis as FSA credits are earned.

Once the sentence reduction has been maxed out at 365 days, the balance of the credits is to be applied to additional halfway house or home confinement. Pavlo points out that “[t]he First Step Act gives the BOP a lot of discretion to place prisoners in the least restrictive, and least costly, confinement.” While the BOP has sole discretion to decide what that confinement will be, but it must be one of the two.

nobrainer241108A BOP decision to use its home confinement authority should be a no-brainer: The halfway houses are filled, causing prisoners to be denied the use of their credits despite their absolute statutory right to them. Home confinement, however, lacks the space limitations (at least not to the same degree).

Unsurprisingly, the BOP has left it home confinement authority on the shelf. As Pavlo observes, the BOP’s “interpretation of the First Step Act at every turn has been to minimize the use of the law to return prisoners to society sooner. The BOP has the law behind it to move thousands more prisoners into the community and to home confinement, if it only had the will to do so.”

Trust the BOP to mismanage things. Pavlo notes that

[p]risoners with 18 months of First Step Act toward prerelease custody should be sent directly to home confinement but they are languishing in halfway houses using resources they do not need. Other prisoners who are not First Step Act eligible and who have longer prison terms, are being passed over for placement in halfway houses in favor of those on First Step Act. The costs are now higher because a prisoner is staying in a higher security prison because there is no halfway house and a minimum security prisoner is stuck in a halfway house when they could be at home.

What he does not mention is that other prisoners entitled by law to the benefit of FSA credits they have earned are being denied halfway house placement because the places are full, in part with prisoners the BOP could move to home confinement.

The BOP could save money, too. When halfway houses monitor people on home confinement, it charges the BOP about half the cost of keeping them in halfway houses. According to the BOP, an inmate in home confinement cost an average of $55.26 per day as of 2020 —less than half the cost of an inmate in secure custody.

Moneyburn170208President-elect Donald Trump, as one of his plethora of promises made during the campaign, said he would slash federal spending. His disdain for anything related to the DOJ is well known. In a November 7 Forbes article, Pavlo said, “[L]ook for an unhappy Trump look for more ways to cut costs at the BOP. In 2018 when Trump made the cuts the BOP’s budget was $7.1 billion. The BOP has asked for $8.6 billion in FY2025 and another $3 billion to bring its facilities up to date. Spending at these levels is simply not going to happen.”

The BOP is required to let prisoners spend their FSA credits. It may be compelled by circumstances and budget to push FSA credit users, especially those who are minimum security and recidivism risk, to home confinement. Even now, doing so would make good sense, which leads commentators like Pavlo to wonder why the agency hasn’t done so.

Forbes, Bureau of Prisons Could Do More To Send People Home, Why Aren’t They? (October 30, 2024)

Dept of Justice, Home Confinement Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, 88 FR 19830 (April 4, 2023)

Forbes, The Bureau Of Prisons Under A Trump Administration (November 7, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Former BOP Official Says “Wait Until The Halfway House Has Space” Is A Fable – Update for October 21, 2024

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

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

antgrasshopper241021Most kids recall Aesop’s fable about the grasshopper who played away the summer while his neighbor, the industrious ant, worked dawn to dusk storing food for the winter. You can imagine the ending: the grasshopper. When the cold winds blow, the hungry grasshopper begs for food from the ant but is refused.

The situation sums up the virtues of hard work and planning for the future, a lesson lost on the Federal Bureau of Prisons when it came to wisely using the years following the First Step Act’s passage to expand access to halfway house space.

Admittedly, 18 USC § 3624(g) is a long, convoluted subsection. But that’s no excuse for the BOP skipping the very last paragraph, which says “[t]he Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall ensure there is sufficient prerelease custody capacity to accommodate all eligible prisoners.” After all, “shall” means “shall” and “all” means “all.”

The grasshopper was reduced to begging. The BOP, on the other hand, has addressed its lack of preparation by vigorously arguing that nothing was its fault and that inmates with FSA credits earned by successfully completing programming that reduces recidivism can use them for halfway house or home confinement only at the whim of the halfway houses. The BOP has told courts that a prisoner has no constitutional right to be placed in a particular facility and that the BOP has exclusive authority and discretion to designate the place of confinement.

The shortage of halfway house or home confinement capacity for all of the FTCs people have to redeem is no secret. BOP Director Collette Peters testified about it before Congress last summer. Her lament that the BOP has a “capacity” problem – like the government’s use of the shortage as a reason FTCs cannot be redeemed – has a flavor of John Belushi as Jake Blue, kneeling in the muck in front of Carrie Fisher, blubbering that his tux had been at the cleaners and that “it’s not my fault.”

fault200814What has been a secret, however, is that the BOP apparently has been fully aware that “shall” means “shall,” and that it is obligated to place prisoners in halfway house or home confinement when their FTCs dictate, not when the halfway house says so. In a remarkable article published this week in ExpertClick, former BOP official and consultant Bruce Cameron and recently retired BOP Unit Management Section Chief Susan M. Giddings – candidly acknowledge that “[t]he BOP has no discretion to deny or delay transfer to prerelease custody for any reason, including the lack of physical space.”

It is not surprising that Bruce would state this obvious fact. He retired from the BOP 11 years ago and has run Federal Prison Authority, a consultancy that (among other things) assists people with RDAP and placement in community programs ever since. But Dr. Giddings – whose declarations have supported any number of government oppositions to prisoner habeas petitions since First Step – only retired from the BOP five months ago. As the “go-to” BOP official on all matters related to FTCs, she would have been privy to the BOP’s thinking when she retired in the same month as the remarkable Woodley v. Warden decision was handed down by a district court in Kansas.

In the ExpertClick article, Susan and Bruce argue that the Woodley decision has limits that are easily overlooked. The Woodley court ruled that while the BOP must place an inmate so that she may use all of her FTCs, the agency “retains its discretion regarding the type and location of placement.” They focus on the Woodley court’s caveat that “the BOP retains the discretion to decide whether to transfer the petitioner to a [halfway house] or home confinement, or even whether to transfer to petitioner to early supervised release[…] Nor does the Court require that petitioner be placed in any particular [halfway house]; thus, the BOP retains the discretion to choose the particular prerelease facility.”

Petitioner Woodley could not be placed in a Tampa halfway house in time to use his FTCs, so pursuant to the court’s order that it do something to place him, the BOP sent him to one in Orlando, 70 miles away. Susan and Bruce complain that by requiring placement so as to use all of a prisoner’s FTCs,

Congress gutted the real and vital purpose of reentry services. Yet, that is the real issue and impact of Woodley. For all their talk, Congress failed to include participation in a meaningful prerelease community program as a part of the FSA, literally contradicting the purpose of the Second Chance Act. So, whether an incarcerated person is placed 5, 50, or 500 miles from their home and community, all that matters is that they were transferred.

outtahere230914It is unlikely that an inmate seeking to cash in his FTCs cares much about the meaningfulness of the “prerelease community program” to which he is sent. What is noteworthy to prisoners is that experts – especially Dr. Giddings, only months from having been at the center of BOP decision-making on all matters related to FTCs – accept as a given Woodley’s holding that “[t]he BOP has no discretion to deny or delay transfer to prerelease custody for any reason, including the lack of physical space.”

Woodley v. Warden, Case No. 24-3053, 2024 USDist LEXIS 87521 (D.Kan. May 15, 2024)

ExpertClick, Woodley v. Warden Revisited: Time Credits, Prerelease Placement, and Agency Discretion (October 17, 2024)

House Subcommittee on Crime And Government Surveillance, Testimony of Colette Peters (July 23, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

You Can Slice a Cucumber, But Not a Federal Sentence – Update for October 16, 2024

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

2ND CIRCUIT DASHES § 924(c) HOPES FOR FTC CREDITS

Everyone knows that the First Step Act excluded people with 18 USC § 924(c) convictions (using, carrying or possessing a gun during and in relation to a drug offense or crime of violence) from getting FTCs (also called FSA credits). And, no, there is no move afoot in Congress to change as much as a jot or a tittle of First Step, especially § 924(c) eligibility.

slicing241016But § 924(c) sentences have to be served consecutively, leading a number of inmates to make the reasonable argument that they should be denied FTCs only during the part of their sentence that represents the § 924(c) sentence. So if you got 84 months for selling marijuana and a consecutive 60 months for carrying a gun while you did it, the argument is that you should be allowed to earn FTCs for 84 months, the non-924(c) part of the sentence.

That’s what Charles Giovinco argued in a district court. He got shot down, and last week, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The 2nd ruled that under 18 USC § 3584(c), “multiple terms of imprisonment ordered to run consecutively or concurrently shall be treated for administrative purposes as a single, aggregate term of imprisonment. Pursuant to this aggregation provision, a prisoner is serving a sentence for any offense that is part of his aggregated term of imprisonment. Accordingly, the Bureau of Prisons must aggregate a prisoner’s sentence pursuant to § 3584(c) for the administrative purpose of determining his eligibility for FSA time credits under § 3632(d)(4).

Giovinco v. Pullen, Case No. 23-251, 2024 U.S.App. LEXIS 25348 (2d Cir. Oct 8, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Better Late Than Never, BOP Comes To The FTC Party – Update for October 7, 2024

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 ALL CONDITIONAL: BOP ANNOUNCES CHANGES IN FSA CREDIT DATES

One of the recurring problems with the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ reluctant implementation of the First Step Act’s system for granting inmates credit for completion of programs designed to reduce recidivism is this: Prisoners are to earn credits as long as they are in BOP custody – including while in halfway house or home confinement – much like good conduct time credit under 18 USC § 3624(b) – but the agency has up to now adopted no system that would capture those latter FSA time credits (FTCs) and apply them to the benefits to which 18 USC § 3624(g) entitles inmates.

bureaucracy241007Instead, the BOP has been refusing to grant FTCs to people within 18 months of their release. It has been as though your employer decided not to pay you for your last month working for him because figuring out your final checks is just too much effort.  Your bureaucracy in action.

Two months ago, however, prisoners’ Sentence Computation forms suddenly included a line for “Conditional Placement Date.”  But nearly as soon as the forms were available, the BOP withdrew the date, claiming an error in calculation. For the last two months, prisoners were denied any documentation of their FSA credit calculations pending further work by the BOP on the subject.

Last Friday, the BOP announced that it will now start calculating three “conditional” dates for inmates. When a prisoner first enters the system, the BOP calculates a release date premised on the inmate earning all of the good conduct time under 18 USC § 3624(b) that he or she could possibly get. Now, the same will be done for FTCs.

The BOP will calculate three dates on a prisoner’s sentence comp sheets:

FTC Conditional Placement Date: The date when an inmate may be eligible for halfway house or home confinement based on the application of his or her maximum potential FTCs.

Second Chance Act (SCA) Conditional Placement Date: The date when an inmate may be eligible for release under the SCA, which allows for up to 12 months halfway house placement. SCA eligibility is based on an individualized assessment by BOP staff. Nothing is promised, with SCA placement being anywhere from zero months to a full year.

Conditional Transition to Community Date: This date is the earliest possible date for transfer from prison to halfway house or home confinement, based on a combination of FTCs and SCA eligibility.

The BOP promises that staff will use these new conditional dates to make release decisions starting 17-19 months before the Conditional Transition to Community Date. The BOP said that “[f]or eligible individuals, this could include recommendations for direct home confinement, bypassing [halfway house] placement where appropriate.”

funwithnumbers170511The BOP warns that “FSA Conditional Release Date is a projected date based on various factors, including continued eligibility for FTCs, participation in programs, and eligibility and appropriateness under SCA.”

Writing in Forbes this past weekend, Walter Pavlo recounted the BOP’s sorry record on FTC implementation, having “been plagued with computer problems to calculate the credits, inconsistent interpretation of the First Step Act and poor communication to the line staff at prisons who are tasked with implementing the programs. The result is that the BOP has held prisoners in institutions longer than necessary and in some cases held them beyond their release date.”

So, hypothetically, someone beginning a 120-month sentence on Jan 1, 2024, would have a good time release date of about July 1, 2032. The first 365 days of FTCs she earned would move that date to July 1, 2031. Between the start of her sentence and July 1, 2031, she would earn 1305 FTCs. After using 365 of those FTCs to reduce her time by a year (under 18 USC § 3624(g)(3)), she would have 940 days left. Those 940 days would let her transition to halfway house or home confinement on about Nov 3, 2028. That date should be her FTC Conditional Placement Date.

Under the Second Chance Act, she could get an additional year in halfway house. That would make her Conditional Transition to Community Date about Nov 3, 2027.

It is close to misfeasance that it has taken the BOP nearly six years from the passage of the First Step Act to finally figure out a system that a kid with an Excel spreadsheet could have accomplished in under an hour. What’s worse is that so many prisoners have been denied their full FTC benefit by an agency hidebound by stasis and contempt for the people entrusted to its custody

beating241007Note that while BOP Director Peters’ kinder, gentler BOP calls inmates “adults in custody,” I do not. When the people locked up in BOP institutions are treated like persons in custody instead of inmates, prisoners, or numbers, I will call them AICs.  For now, the BOP treats them with contempt. Calling them AICs doesn’t change that.

BOP, FBOP Updates to Phone Call Policies and Time Credit System (October 4, 2024)

Forbes, Bureau of Prisons Announces Updates To First Step Act Calculations (October 5, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Food Fight – Update for September 19, 2024

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

INMATES RESTIVE OVER FSA CREDIT MISFEASANCE

numbers180327Walter Pavlo reported in Forbes last Friday that despite BOP Director Colette Peters’ statement to a House Judiciary Subcommittee two months ago that the agency is now using a forward-looking calculator for First Step Act credits – credits earned for successful participation in programs intended to reduce recidivism – the calculator remains only partly implemented, leaving federal inmates confused and frustrated.

The BOP is now calculating both a Projected Release Date – which shows a release date calculated only on how many credits have been awarded to date – and a Conditional Release Date that predicts how many credits the prisoner is likely to earn over his or her remaining sentence. Pavlo wrote that “case managers are confused over which one should be used for planning purposes. It may seem obvious that the Conditional Release Date would make more sense, but that is not how it is working.”

Pavlo reported that at the Federal Prison Camp at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama, prisoners engaged in a food strike last week, planning to continue until staff ensures that “their concerns are addressed.”

In keeping with its policy of maximum opacity, the BOP issued a public statement saying only that “numerous inmates” skipped lunch and that BOP employees “are looking into why.”

hungerstrike240918

Pavlo knows why, as does anyone who has followed the BOP’s messy and incompetent implementation of the First Step Act. He explained:

Many prisoners there are eligible for FSA credits and they lined up outside of case managers’ offices last week to get answers to a simple question, “When am I leaving?” Tensions rose as prisoners were told to leave their units from 7:00am until 3:30pm as those meeting with case managers were not getting straight answers. According to prisoners I spoke with on condition of anonymity, tensions are high as case managers could not provide answers as to what the BOP’s position was on the new calculations.

While local news in Montgomery provided some information about the unrest at the federal prison, personal accounts from family members poured in telling of concern of escalation from staff who are taking away television time, visitation, computers and microwaves. “This is all about the BOP not giving us answers to things we know about from reading the First Step Act law,” said Donavan Davis a prisoner at FPC Montgomery, “I should be home now and nobody is listening.”

Pavlo reported that “[p]risoners told me that the BOP is not being clear about its position on First Step Act credits being awarded and many believe they are now being held against the law. Some provided information that confirms they could have been placed on home confinement months ago…”

I have heard from a number of inmates whose Conditional Release Dates have already passed without any indication from BOP officials that they are being placed in halfway house or home confinement as required by law. BOP Director Peters told the House Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance in July that “the shortage of halfway house space, the primary means of monitoring those on home confinement, is at a crisis level.”

We already knew that, but Pavlo underscored the BOP failure: The “limitation of halfway house space is keeping people in prison longer, and apparently, many have had enough.”

Diverse reports from prisoners in facilities across the BOP suggest that institutions are responding to prisoner demands for release on their Conditional Release Dates by refusing to provide inmates with copies of their FSA credit sheets. The theory apparently is if ignorance is not bliss, at least it deprives the “adults in custody” of proof that they’re being denied their rights and thus grounds for complaint.

foodstrike240918Food strikes aren’t going to make the BOP honor FSA credits. The BOP takes any organized protest by inmates as a serious matter, akin to a riot. The outcome is never good for the prisoners. The matter has to be solved in court, and the sooner the better.

Forbes, Bureau Of Prisons’ Issues With First Step Act Leads to Food Strike… (September 14, 2024)

House Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, Oversight Hearing on Federal Bureau of Prisons Oversight (July 23, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

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

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

WHEN ‘SHALL’ CAN MEAN ‘MAY’

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

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

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

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

The District Court ruled,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad case. Hard law.

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

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

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

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

– Thomas L. Root

November 1st Promises to be a Quiet Day – Update For August 16, 2024

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

MYTHBUSTERS

I might fairly be accused of trotting out the old “Mythbusters” trope every few months or so when I have nothing else to write about. But it’s not so.

mythbusters240816A loyal reader, himself a skilled jailhouse lawyer, urged me several months ago to revisit some of inmates’ most cherished rumors and myths. He was feeling a little beaten down by well-intended questions about how the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision invalidating the Chevron deference doctrine must mean that people with medium and high recidivism scores will now be able to earn First Step Act credits. (Hint: Loper Bright will affect FSA credits not at all).

Others are demanding to know how President Joe Biden’s signing of H.R. 3019 into law would do the same.

It has been a busy summer, however, and although I am getting the usual number of emails asking why the BOP won’t renew the elderly offender home detention program and when the new meth law takes effect, it took this email yesterday to force my hand:

PATRICIA PRISONER on 8/15/2024 at 10:32:58 AM wrote

i have a question concerning the FSA..IN NOVEMBER WHEN THE LAWS COME INTO EFFECT..WILL THE PPL WITH HIGH OR MEDIUM RECIDIVISM BE ABLE TO USE THEIR TIME CREDITS??DO ANYTHING CHANGE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE PROGRAMED BUT WONT BE ABLE TO CHANGE THEIR STATUS TO A LOW???

Aarrgh! Another FSA credit question.

So here we go, by the numbers:

(1)    What will happen on November 1st?

On November 1st, two things will happen. First, Sentencing Guidelines amendments proposed last spring will go into effect, unless Congress blocks them (which it will not).

nothinghere190906The second is that BOP Director Colette Peters will ride up to the front gate of every BOP institution and give one lucky inmate a ride home on the back of her BOP Central Office unicorn.

Only one of the foregoing is true. And it ain’t the unicorn.

Unfortunately, the traditional November 1st date for the effectiveness of sentencing guidelines amendments has attained an almost mythical status on the inmate grapevine commonly known as “inmate.com.” But let’s remember this (covered in high school government class, probably on a day you skipped): The sentencing guidelines, like all government regulations, are NOT laws. Guidelines are written by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to authority granted by Congress. They are advisory only. A judge does not have to follow them. And this year, not a single Guidelines amendment will retroactively apply to people already sentenced. So, the amendments going into effect on November 1 have absolutely no effect on federal prisoners.

Congress has not passed any changes to the federal criminal laws this year. With only about 35 more days of legislative sessions this year for the House and 39 for the Senate (and with elections for all representatives and one-third of the senators), there is no chance that Congress will do anything to benefit federal prisoners.

The misperception that crime is rising is one of the bogeymen of this election cycle. No legislator’s going to vote for something that may benefit maybe 50,000 federal prisoners but gives his or her opponent an opening to argue that the incumbent voted to let dangerous criminals go free. As the politicians say, it’s bad optics.

(2) The BOP is not arbitrarily denying FSA credits to high and medium recidivism inmates.

Under 18 USC 3624(g)(1), in order to use FSA credits, a prisoner must have a “minimum” or “low” recidivism risk or “ha[ve] shown through the periodic risk reassessments a demonstrated recidivism risk reduction.” It is possible for a medium or high recidivism inmate to earn the right to spend FSA credits, but the statute (18 USC 3624(g)(1)(D)(ii)) is very specific about how difficult earning such a right would be.

recidivism240408The important point is that any changes to the FSA credit program – that lets prisoners earn credits to shorten sentences and permit more halfway house/home confinement – that would permit people with high and medium recidivism scores to use their credits, both the House and the Senate would have to pass an amended First Step Act law and the President would have to sign it. It simply is not going to happen this year.

And while we’re on it, why won’t the BOP let people with 18 USC § 924(c) gun charges have FSA credits? Simply enough, it’s because Congress deliberately excluded § 924(c) convictions from eligibility. The BOP’s got no power to change that.

(3) H.R. 3019 was indeed signed by the President, but it is the Federal Prison Oversight Act and has nothing to do with FSA credits.

In the 5½ years since the First Step Act was passed, no one has mounted any serious effort to change the FSA credits. Congress seems content that 63 different categories of offenses (comprising about half of all federal inmates) remain ineligible for FSA credits.

The FPOA is legislation that holds great promise for increasing BOP accountability, but it has nothing to do with the First Step Act in general or FSA credits in particular.

(4) Elderly Offender Home Detention Program has come and gone.

I still get complaints that the BOP is denying people who are 60 years old home confinement at their two-thirds date.

Of course it is. The two-thirds home confinement for 60+ people was the Elderly Offender Home Detention Program, authorized by the First Step Act. It was a pilot program, and was authorized to run until September 30, 2023. When it expired, I wrote about it.

The important point is that Congress set the expiration date. The BOP has no right to waive the expiration date or to extend it. It’s up to Congress, and Congress hasn’t done a thing about it.

(5) When does the new meth law go into effect?

meth240618What new meth law? About 18 months ago, a single district court in Mississippi ruled that the Guidelines enhancement for methamphetamine purity should not be applied because these days, just about all meth is high purity. The judge in question, however, was Carleton Reeves, who happens to be chairman of the Sentencing Commission, making the holding kind of a big deal.

The Guidelines enhancement is based on 21 USC § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), which sets differing levels for pure meth and a “mixture… containing a detectable amount” of meth. Last June, the Commission released a study showing that meth purity is no longer a reasonable metric for enhancement. The Commission may yet take up the enhancement, although it has not yet committed to do so. However, no real change can be effected until Congress changes the law. Congress has given no indication it is interested in doing so.

(6)    A Basic Government lesson

We should all understand that a “congress” runs for two years. We are in the 118th Congress right now. It ends on January 2, 2025, The 119th Congress begins on January 3, 2025, and ends on January 3, 2027.

When a Congress ends, any bill that is pending but not passed disappears. The 119th Congress starts with a clean slate. This means that any bill currently pending (like marijuana reform, the EQUAL Act, First Step Act changes) will die.

Whether any criminal justice reform legislation makes it through the 119th Congress has a lot to do with who controls the House and Senate and who will be sitting in the White House. If one party ends up controlling all of it (especially the Democrats), some of what has been stalled – such as the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act and EQUAL Act — may have a real shot.

– Thomas L. Root

Congress Orders BOP To Spend Money It Doesn’t Have – Update for July 31, 2024

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

FPOA IS LAW, BUT BOP MONEY WOES PERSIST

hr3019oversight240528President Joe Biden signed the Federal Prisons Oversight Act into law last Thursday. The bill is intended to strengthen oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons after The Associated Press reported on systemic corruption, failures and abuse in the federal prison system.

The FPOA, which passed the Senate on July 10th and the House last May, establishes an independent ombudsman to field and investigate complaints by prisoners, their families, and staff about misconduct and deficiencies. It also requires that the Dept of Justice inspector general conduct regular inspections of all 122 federal prison facilities, issue recommendations to address deficiencies and assign each facility a risk score. Higher-risk facilities would receive more frequent inspections.

BOP Director Colette Peters praised the bill in testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance last week, but told the Subcommittee that the agency will need tens of millions of dollars in additional funding “to effectively respond to the additional oversight and make that meaningful, long-lasting change.”

“You inherited a mess. I mean, you inherited a mess,” Congressman Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) told Peters during her testimony last Tuesday. And she did, a mess that is not going to go away without money.

understaffed220929For instance, Peters noted that the new FPOA limits the BOP’s use of augmentation, the practice of using education, medical and other staff as stand-in corrections officers. “While I agree with the sentiment of limiting augmentation,” Peters told the Subcommittee, “today in the midst of our staffing crisis, without augmentation, we will mandate more overtime which will not only cost tens of millions of dollars more per year (~$60 million) but again, I will note the human cost and the physical and mental wear and tear on our people.”

Last year alone, the BOP paid more than $128 million in incentives and more than $345 million in overtime. Ordering the BOP to stop augmentation without giving the agency the money needed to hire COs is like trying to stamp out poverty by ordering poor people to be rich.

Peters testified, “Over the past 10 years, BOP’s budget only increased approximately 23% (which equates to about 2% per year). Over that period, budgeting resulted in a reduction of 3,473 authorized positions… Over the past 10 years, we did not receive a total of more than 1,900 authorized positions and 7,000 FTEs requested in the President’s Budgets… BOP has temporarily closed three institutions and 13 housing units at 11 institutions due to dangerous conditions. They account for a loss of more than 4,000 beds at every security level.”

Writing in Forbes last week, Walter Pavlo pointed out that the BOP has some control over its destiny:

One way to help reduce the stress the agency is under is by reducing the number of prisoners in prisons, something that could be done with a full implementation of the First Step Act and Second Chance Act. Director Peters noted that the prison population has slightly increased over the past few years despite the legislation. Those two laws, both passed and signed into law under Republican administrations (Donald Trump and George W. Bush respectively) allow many low and minimum security prisoners to reduce their prison term by up to a year and also place them in the community (halfway houses) for longer periods of time.

No room at the inn?
No room at the inn?

An NBC News investigation found that the BOP is not placing as many people in the community as it could. The result is that many prisoners stay in correctional institutions far longer than necessary when less restrictive and less expensive prerelease custody (halfway house/home confinement) should be available. However, a noted shortage of halfway house space is preventing the BOP from placing more people in confinement in the community. Retired BOP Acting Director Hugh Hurwitz said, ‘Since the First Step Act was signed, the BOP knew it needed more capacity but nearly 6 years later, halfway house space continues to be a problem’.”

“We believe in accountability, oversight, and transparency,” Peters told the House Subcommittee. “But we cannot do this work alone.” That is true, but there is more that the BOP can do.

Associated Press, Biden signs bill strengthening oversight of crisis-plagued US Bureau of Prisons after AP reporting (July 25, 2024)

Sen Jon Ossoff, SIGNED INTO LAW: Sens. Ossoff, Braun, & Durbin, Reps. McBath & Armstrong’s Bipartisan Federal Prison Oversight Act (July 25, 2024)

BOP, Oral Statement of Director Colette S. Peters, July 23, 2024,
House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance

Forbes, Bureau of Prisons Director Testifies At House Judiciary Committee (July 24, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root