Tag Archives: retroactivity

3rd Circuit ‘Lopers’ the Sentencing Commission – Update for November 4, 2024

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.

WHERE THERE’S A ‘WILL’ THERE’S A ‘WON’T’

chevron230508One of our favorite Supreme Court decisions last June was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a case that punched Chevron deference’s ticket by holding that courts don’t have to defer to agencies’ interpretations of federal law as long as those interpretations are reasonable. Instead, Loper Bright held, courts are in the business of figuring out what statutes say, and they should not defer to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who often have a vested interest in the interpretations they put on the laws the agencies are supposed to administer.

We saw the dark side of Loper Bright last Friday. The day after the 6th Circuit heard oral argument in a case over whether the Sentencing Commission’s guideline, USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6) – that says an extraordinary and compelling reason for a compassionate release may include an overly-long sentence that could not be imposed today because of a change in the law – exceeds the Commission’s authority.

In the First Step Act, Congress reduced the mandatory minimums for some drug offenses and refined 18 USC § 924(c) to provide that the 25-year minimum for a second § 924(c) offense could only be imposed after a prior § 924(c) conviction. Before First Step, if you carried a gun when you sold pot on Monday and then carried it again when you sold pot on Wednesday, you would get maybe 60 months for selling drugs AND a mandatory consecutive 60 months for carrying a gun on Monday AND a mandatory consecutive 300 months for Wednesday’s gun. Your two-day drug selling binge would have netted you 420 months (35 years) in prison.

retro240506For reasons more political than legal, Congress did not make the changes in drug and § 924(c) mandatory minimum sentences retroactive. But in the years since, some judges found that the fact that some people were serving impossibly long sentences that they could not have had imposed on them after First Step passed could constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for grant of a compassionate release motion. Other Circuits, notably the 3rd, 7th and 11th, ruled that overly long sentences could not serve as extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release because Congress had not made the changes to the laws that dictated those sentences retroactive.

When the Sentencing Commission finally adopted a new Guideline – § 1B1.13 – a year ago, it included as one of the defined extraordinary and compelling reasons for a compassionate release grant a case where a defendant had a disparately long sentence because of a nonretroactive change in the law. The Dept of Justice began a full-throated attack on subsection (b)(6), arguing that because First Step does not make the changes in § 924(c) retroactive, the Commission was exceeding its authority by letting people do an end run around Congress.

A 6th Circuit panel heard oral argument last week in United States v. Bricker, three consolidated cases in which the government is arguing that subsection (b)(6) exceeds the Sentencing Commission’s congressionally delegated authority. The next day, in United States v. Rutherford, a 3rd Circuit panel held that subsection (b)(6) is invalid.

The Rutherford defendant won a compassionate release after 20 years of being locked up on a 42-year sentence for two armed robberies of a doctor’s office. Citing its right under Loper Bright to ignore the Sentencing Commission’s interpretation of the extent of its authority, the Rutherford panel ruled against Mr. Rutherford based on its belief as to “the will of Congress”:

Subsection (b)(6)… as applied to the First Step Act’s modification of § 924(c), conflicts with the will of Congress and thus cannot be considered in determining a prisoner’s eligibility for compassionate release. Congress explicitly made the First Step Act’s change to § 924(c) nonretroactive… [I]t would be inconsistent with [the] pertinent provisions of the First Step Act… to allow the amended version of § 924(c) to be considered in the compassionate release context because Congress specifically decided that the changes to the § 924(c) mandatory minimum sentences would not apply to people who had already been sentenced.

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, criticized the 3rd’s decision. “Besides the non-textual nature of divining the “will” of Congress to rule against a defendant, this holding conflates Congress’s nonretroactivity decisions in the First Step Act with its decision, in the very same Act, to expand access to compassionate release and to keep in place the broad parameters of USSC authority to set terms for compassionate release. There is nothing at all “inconsistent” with Congress saying not everyone should automatically retroactively benefit from a particular change in law and the USSC saying that judges can consider a change in law for a select few pursuing another legal remedy.”

forceofwill241104A cardinal canon of statutory construction holds that where the text of a statute is clear, that’s all that matters. But Rutherford holds in essence that what the court thinks Congress “willed” is more important than what the law Congress passed actually says.

A Fifth Circuit panel has already held that subsection (b)(6) is a legitimate exercise of Commission authority. Prof Berman believes it is “inevitable” that the issue will have to be settled by the Supreme Court.

United States v. Rutherford, Case No. 23-1904, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27740 (3d Cir., November 1, 2024)

United States v. Bricker, Case No. 24-3286 (6th Cir., argument held October 31, 2024)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Based on “the will of Congress,” Third Circuit panel adheres to prior ruling limiting ground for compassionate release (November 1, 2024)

United States v. Jean, 108 F.4th 275 (5th Cir., 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

A Little Something for Halloween – Update for October 31, 2024

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.

TRICK OR TREAT

Trick – Tomorrow is November 1st, and you know what happens then…

Nothing.

nothinghere190906I get emails all the time asking me about new laws supposedly becoming effective on November 1. One hopeful prisoner wrote last week, asking me to send him all the changes in 18 USC § 924(c) taking effect tomorrow.

I was tempted to send a blank email back to him, but I have written so often about the myth of November 1st. If he hadn’t gotten it by now, a blank email would just have him blaming the Bureau of Prisons’ clunky email system for stripping the message of hope out of my response.

So, one more time: Nothing happens tomorrow, except that last May’s announced Guideline amendments become effective. None of those changes are retroactive, so nothing in the changes will benefit people who have already been sentenced.
jackolanternpumpkin241031

Treat – The Dept of Justice and other law enforcement agencies on Monday morning raided (“conducted a sweep,” The New York Times said) of MDC Brooklyn.

IG230518The DOJ Office of the Inspector General led the operation, which included DEA and FBI agents.  Donald Murphy, a spokesman for the Bureau of Prisons, said in a statement that “the operation was preplanned and there is no active threat” at the prison, where around 1,200 people are held, including Sean Combs, known as Diddy, and Sam Bankman-Fried.

Murphy said the BOP had been involved in the planning. He said the action was “designed to achieve our shared goal of maintaining a safe environment for both our employees and the incarcerated individuals housed at MDC Brooklyn.”

MDC Brooklyn has the dubious distinction of being so bad that judges have conditioned prison terms on defendants not being designated to the facility.

The New York Times, U.S. Officials Sweep Troubled Brooklyn Prison Where 2 Were Killed  (October 28. 2024)

Associated Press, Authorities launch ‘interagency operation’ at federal jail in New York housing Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs (October 28, 2024)

jackolanternpumpkin241031

Trick – In 2022, 18 USC § 2243(c) passed, making it illegal for someone acting as a federal law enforcement officer to knowingly engage in a sexual act with someone in federal custody. A Government Accountability Office report last week told Congress that no one has been charged or convicted since the law passed.

The Report somewhat hopefully chalked up the nonuse of the new statute to several anodyne factors:

First, individuals cannot be charged for prohibited conduct that occurred prior to the provision’s effective date of October 1, 2022. Second, it can take several years from the time of an alleged incident to the filing of a criminal case to a disposition of the criminal case. Finally, according to an official from DOJ’s Office on Violence Against Women, many victims do not report sexual abuse immediately due to a variety of factors, including fear of retaliation.

What a relief! I thought for a minute there might be a deliberate failure to root out violations.

GAO 25-107684, Federal Law Enforcement: Criminal Sexual Acts while Serving in Official Capacity (October 21, 2024)
jackolanternpumpkin241031

Treat – In August 2019, Tamir Abdullah, a defendant serving a federal crack cocaine sentence, moved for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act (the retroactive Fair Sentencing Act). The district court denied the motion a swift 4-1/2 years later.

delayed200115Last week, the 6th Circuit upheld the denial but spared no words in its condemnation of U.S. District Court Judge John Adams (N.D. Ohio), a judge who is so bad that the 6th Circuit once ordered him to undergo a mental health examination:

Although we grant district courts broad discretion in managing their own dockets, we look unfavorably upon lengthy, unjustified, and inexplicable delays on the part of district courts in deciding cases… We see no reason in the record to justifiably explain why the district court took 1,625 days to resolve a straightforward sentence-reduction motion… Nor was the order finally issued by the district court adequate. That gravely flawed order failed to analyze Abdullah’s sentence-reduction motion under the multi-step test… and instead ruled on an argument—entitlement to compassionate release due to the COVID-19 pandemic—that Abdullah’s motion plainly did not advance.

The criticism is reminiscent of similar complaints about U.S. District Judge Timothy Black (S.D. Ohio) last winter.  It cannot be said too often that a sentence reduction motion that sits undecided is sometimes worse than no remedy at all.

United States v. Abdullah, Case No 24-3093, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26639 (6th Cir. Oct 22, 2024)
jackolanternpumpkin241031

– Thomas L. Root

Sentencing Commission’s Sounds of Silence on Retroactivity – Update for August 9, 2024

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 PUTS BRAKES ON RETROACTIVITY

deafeningslience240809In the annals of retroactive U.S. Sentencing Commission guidelines, never has such an ambitious retroactivity agenda yieldzed such… silence.

The USSC is the federal agency responsible for promulgating guidelines for federal judges in imposing criminal sentences. Its proposed amendments to those Guidelines — made in the spring of every year — become part of the Guidelines on November 1 unless Congress steps in to veto some or all of the changes.

A Guidelines change that would reduce a sentencing range does not apply to the sentence of a prisoner who has already been sentenced unless the Commission proposes a change in USSG § 1B1.10, the Guideline governing retroactivity.

Retroactivity doesn’t happen often. In 36 years and over 825 amendments, the USSC has made an amendment retroactive 21 times (under 3% of the time).

retro240506This year, the Commission proposed to make four Guideline changes, in areas of acquitted conduct, gun enhancements, Guidelines calculation where a defendant is convicted of an 18 USC § 922(g) felon-in-possession count, a 21 USC § 841 drug trafficking count , and a separate 18 USC § 924(c) gun conviction; and a change in the drug Guidelines to tie mandatory and high base offense levels to statutory maximum sentences instead of more complex factors that inflate sentencing ranges.

The Commission solicited public comment on the proposed retroactivity and the staff prepared retroactivity impact reports that, among other matters, estimated how many prisoners would be eligible for reduced sentences if retroactivity on each proposal was adopted.

However, at yesterday’s meeting, the Commission tersely declined to vote on the measure. After about 10 minutes of discussion on Commission priorities for the coming year, US District Court Judge Carlton Reeves (SD-MS), chairman of the Commission called for a motion to adopt the retroactivity proposal. His call was met with a deafening silence.

Chairman Reeves was not surprised, the decision to defer retroactivity apparently having been scripted beforehand. He said:

The matter fails for a lack of a motion.

The public tuned in today to hear not only about the commission’s final priorities but also our decision about retroactivity. Our final priorities made clear that we are listening closely to the public’s recommendations about how to do our work. Many have called for the Commission to identify clear principles that will guide its approach to retroactivity. After deep deliberation, we have decided to heed those calls. For that reason, we will not be voting on retroactivity today. Nevertheless, I want to thank all of those who submitted comments and testimony regarding retroactivity for these amendments. Please know that your input has been heard and will continue to be heard as the Commission moves forward.

So what happened?

The best speculation is that the Commission is responding to criticism heaped on it for adopting amended Guideline 1B1.13(b)(6), which permits judges to grant compassionate release where a prisoner’s sentence could not be imposed today because of changes in the law that occurred after the sentence was imposed. Subsection (b)(6) contains a lot of caveats: the prisoner must have served 10 years, the change must have created a substantial disparity between the prisoner’s sentence and current sentences for the same offense, and the inmate’s prison record had better be clean as a whistle.

Nevertheless, after the Commission adopted the amended 1B1.13 containing the new subsection (b)(6), Sen John Kennedy (R-LA), a member of the Judiciary Committee, introduced the Consensus in Sentencing Act (S.4135) to require the Commission to achieve “bipartisan agreement to make major policy changes.” The bill would amend 28 USC § 994(a) to require that amendments to the Guidelines receive five votes from the Commission’s seven voting members.

At the time, Kennedy whined that “[t]he Sentencing Commission for decades strove to achieve bipartisan agreement when adopting amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. In recent years, the Commission has lost its way and begun forcing through amendments on party-line votes.”

The Commission has seven voting members. No more than four members can belong to the same political party.

Sens Ted Cruz (R-TX), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) cosponsored S.4135, which is stalled in the Judiciary Committee and has no chance of passage before the 118th Congress expires at the end of the year.

Nevertheless, in June, retired US District Judge John Gleeson, a member of the Commission, met with Kennedy, after which Kennedy said that “Gleeson acknowledged the concerns raised about the Commission’s recent practices and confirmed that the Commission will return to making changes on a bipartisan basis.”
“I look forward to seeing the fruits of this commitment.”

I suspect he just did.

can230407The Commission did not reject retroactivity on the amendments, but its intention to adopt guiding principles for retroactivity pretty much ensures that any decision on making the acquitted conduct and other amendments retroactive has been kicked down the road for a year or better.

Sentencing Commission Public Hearing (Video) (August 8, 2024)

Sentencing Commission, Final Priorities for Amendment Cycle (August 8, 2024)

S.4135, Consensus in Sentencing Act

Sen John Kennedy, Kennedy introduces bill to restore bipartisan decision-making at Sentencing Commission (April 7, 2024)

Sen John Kennedy, Kennedy confirms that Sentencing Commission will return to bipartisan agreement for changes to Sentencing Guidelines (June 3, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Some Short Stuff – Update for August 2, 2024

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.

Today, some short reports for easy beach reading…

shorts240802

SUMMERTIME SHORTS

retro160110Sentencing Commission Retroactivity Decision, Priorities For Next Year Set For Aug 8: At a scheduled Aug 8 meeting, the US Sentencing Commission will decide whether four proposed Guidelines changes to become effective in November will be retroactive.

The four changes for which retroactivity is on the table are

• the acquitted conduct amendment;

• a change to § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) to provide that the 4-level enhancement gun serial number obliteration applies only if the serial number has been modified such the original number is “is rendered illegible or unrecognizable to the unaided eye;” and

• a change to Commentary in § 2K2.4 to permit grouping of an 18 USC § 922(g) gun count with a 21 USC § 841 drug trafficking count where the defendant has a separate 18 USC § 924(c) gun conviction based on drug trafficking.

• a change in § 2D1.1(a) to tie mandatory and high base offense levels to statutory maximum sentences instead of more complex factors that are not necessarily consistent with 21 USC  § 841(b)(1)(A) or (B).

The Commission will also adopt priorities for the coming year.

US Sentencing Commission, Public Meeting, Thursday, August 8, 2024

‘Dirty Dick’s’ Woes Continue: A superseding indictment handed up last week accused former Bureau of Prisons correctional officer Darrell Wayne “Dirty Dick” Smith of sexually abusing more inmates at FCI Dublin.

Last Thursday, a federal grand jury charged Smith with 15 counts of sexual abuse, including a civil rights violation, against five women in their cells and a laundry facility between 2016 and 2021.. Smith, known to detainees as “Dirty Dick,” had previously been indicted of sexually abusing three female inmates.

He is accused by inmates of actively roaming the prison, seeking out victims, and locking women in their cells until they exposed themselves to him.

L.A. Times, Guard at ‘rape club’ prison faces new charges of sexually abusing inmates (July 26, 2024)

DOJ Sides With Prisoners In SCOTUS First Step Case: The Supreme Court has had to appoint private lawyers to argue the other side of a pending case, Hewett v. United States, asking whether the First Step Act requires a resentencing to apply changes in mandatory minimums favorable to defendants.

goodlawyer240802The Dept of Justice has told the high court that “the government agrees that the best reading of Section 403(b) is that Section 403’s amended statutory penalties apply at any sentencing that takes place after the Act’s effective date, including a resentencing.”

In cases where the government agrees with the petitioner, the Supreme Court appoints a lawyer to argue the other side so that the Court’ decision is based on a thorough examination of the issue. In Erlinger v. United States, decided last month, DOJ agreed with the petitioners that juries should decide whether Armed Career Criminal Act predicate crimes occurred on separate occasions, requiring SCOTUS to appoint counsel to argue against the petitioner. The Court appointed a private attorney to argue the side abandoned by the government.

For Hewitt, the Court appointed Michael H. McGinley, Global Co-chair of the Securities and Complex Litigation practice group for mega law firm Dechert LLP, to argue that First Step does not let defendants benefit from more liberal sentencing terms if their original sentence was imposed before the law passed.

Supreme Court, Order (July 26, 2024)


hardtime240801‘Hard’ Federal Time Converts Another One: Peter Navarro, who completed a 4-month federal sentence for contempt of Congress two weeks ago just in time to be whisked to Milwaukee to address the Republican National Convention, said last week that federal law imposes harsher sentences than necessary for drug offenses.

“The standard that we want to have when we think about the criminal justice system, which I’ve been inside of now and I understand this better, there are bad people doing bad things, but there’s good people doing bad things as well,” Navarro said in a TV interview.

Navarro said that the longer people are in prison, the higher the chance that they will commit more crimes because they have “fewer skills” and “get more angry.”

The Trump advisor also said the costs of housing inmates costs about $60,000 a year per inmate, but that placing people on house arrest or in halfway homes reduces the costs by roughly half.

Just the News, Navarro urges U.S. to be ‘smart’ on crime, not ‘soft’ on crime following prison sentence (July 23, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Good News and Bad News on Guideline Retroactivity – Update for May 20, 2024

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.

USSC ESTIMATES RETROACTIVITY IMPACT OF 2024 GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS

retro240506The Sentencing Commission is considering whether to make several defendant-friendly changes in the proposed 2024 Guidelines amendments retroactive. One factor in any retroactivity analysis is how many inmates would be eligible for a sentence reduction.

Last week, the USSC staff released a study that was both good news and bad news for prisoners hoping to benefit from next November’s amendments. The staff found that if all four changes are made retroactive, a few more than 4,000 inmates might benefit.

The four changes for which retroactivity is on the table are

• the acquitted conduct amendment;

• a change to USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) to provide that the 4-level enhancement gun serial number obliteration applies only if the serial number has been modified such the original number is “is rendered illegible or unrecognizable to the unaided eye;” and

• a change to Commentary in § 2K2.4 to permit grouping of 18 USC § 922(g) gun counts with drug trafficking counts where the defendant has a separate 18 USC § 924(c) conviction based on drug trafficking.

• a change in USSG § 2D1.1(a) to tie mandatory and high base offense levels to statutory maximum sentences instead of more complex factors that are not necessarily consistent with 21 USC § 841(b)(1)(A) or (B).

The USSC staff estimates if the Commission were to authorize retroactivity for the acquitted conduct amendment, 1,971 Bureau of Prisons inmates would be eligible to seek retroactive sentence chances.

If the Commission were to authorize retroactivity for the USSG § 2K2.1(b)(4)(B)(i) gun serial number obliteration amendment, 1,452 prisoners would be eligible to seek modification of their sentences.

Retroactive application of the change in USSG § 2K2.4 to permit grouping of § 922(g) gun counts with drug trafficking counts would benefit only about 102 BOP prisoners.

Finally, if the Commission were to authorize the retroactive application of the amendment changing USSG § 2D1.1(a) to tie mandatory and high base offense drug crime levels to statutory maximum sentences, the staff found, 538 prisoners would be eligible to seek a sentence reduction.

goodbad240520This is good news in that when the number of people eligible for retroactivity is too high, the Commission may not authorize retroactivity out of fear that the courts will be too clogged with § 3582(c)(2) motions. The 4,000 figure–about 2.5% of the BOP population–is far below a level that would pose an administrative problem. The bad news is the same, that only 2.5% of prisoners may be eligible for a sentence reduction.

By comparison, the Commission reports that 5,475 people have applied for the reduction in status-point criminal history (with 55% granted) and that 4,057 people have applied for the zero-point reduction (with 53% granted).

Note: A month ago, I reported that a proposed amendment reducing criminal history points for juvenile convictions was being considered for retroactivity. It is not, and frankly, I don’t know how I ever misread the USSC’s dense and confusing report a month ago to come up with that. I am sorry for the error.

US Sentencing Commission, Retroactivity Impact Analysis of Certain 2024 Amendments (May 17)

– Thomas L. Root

The “Hollowayers” Work To Produce Another Hit – Update for April 5, 2024

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.

‘HOLLOWAY PROJECT’ BATTLES DOJ ON COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

honeymooner240405Longer ago than I care to recall (I was not yet in kindergarten), Jackie Gleason rocketed to fame as one of the creators and star of “The Honeymooners.” Now, about seven decades later, John Gleeson is the star of his own production – no comedy here – leading what may soon bear a dramatic fight to peel away what he calls the injustice of “stacked” mandatory federal prison sentences.

I was saddened to see Judge Gleeson give up his lifetime appointment on the federal bench eight years ago for white-shoe Wall Street law firm Debevoise & Plimpton. I could hardly blame him: D&P reportedly started him at well above minimum wage (even California minimum wage). But I selfishly wanted him to stay on as an Eastern District of New York judge for no other reason than his cerebral and compassionate approach to federal sentencing. I figured that Debevoise probably didn’t do a lot of court-appointed federal defense work, and we thus had probably seen the last of Judge Gleeson’s fresh and intelligent approach to sentencing.

What did I know? Eight years later, Judge Gleeson not only sits on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, he’s leading a D&P Initiative that could soon face off with the Department of Justice at the Supreme Court.

gleesonB160314Bloomberg Law reports that Judge Gleeson is the driving force behind “The Holloway Project,” a pro bono program that represents prisoners convicted of multiple 18 USC § 924(c) offenses prior to the passage of the First Step Act. The Project’s goal is to reduce the sentences for clients they believe have been rehabilitated after decades in prison.

The project is named for Francois Holloway, who Gleeson himself sentenced to 57 years in a robbery/gun case but later reduced by convincing the U.S. Attorney for EDNY at the time, Loretta Lynch, not to get in the way.

(Parenthetically, the Holloway resentencing spawned a cottage industry of low-brow post-conviction consultants who were hawking “Holloway motions” to prisoners. I heard from a lot of people asking how to file Holloway motions, only to be disappointed when I told them that all they had to do was get the U.S. Attorney and their judge to agree that they should be let out. The universal response: “The prosecutor will never agree to that!”   No kidding. It was hardly Judge Gleeson’s fault that bottom-feeders tried to bilk inmate families on the basis of the Judge’s extraordinary effort on Francois’s behalf, but the Holloway case  was a true Black Swan.)

blackswan170206Back to today: As a Sentencing Commission member, Judge Gleeson championed the adoption of USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6), a subsection of the new Guidelines policy statement on sentence reduction motions (commonly if inaccurately called “compassionate release” motions). which defines overly long sentences where the law has changed as an extraordinary and compelling basis for an 18 USC § 3582(c)(1) sentence reduction. Subsection (b)(6) defines when a nonretroactive change in the law that would reduce a current sentence dramatically if it were retroactive could constitute an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for a sentence reduction under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Subsection (b)(6) is important to compassionate release for the same reason all of USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6) is important. Section 3582(c)(1)(A) authorizes a judge to grant a sentence reduction when three conditions are met:

•  the reduction must be for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.”

•  the reduction must be consistent with applicable Sentencing Commission policy statements.

•  the reduction must be “consistent” (whatever that means) with the sentencing factors of 18 USC § 3553(a).

When Congress enacted § 3582 as part of the Sentence Reform Act of 1984, it stipulated that rehabilitation alone was not an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. As for what might be, Congress did not say. Instead, it delegated to the Sentencing Commission the authority and duty to define exactly what situations constitute “extraordinary and compelling reasons” under the statute.

Guideline 1B1.13 is the Commission’s response, listing by my count 17 situations that are extraordinary and compelling. Of focus to Judge Gleeson’s team is USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6), which says

Unusually Long Sentence.—If a defendant received an unusually long sentence and has served at least 10 years of the term of imprisonment, a change in the law (other than an amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive) may be considered in determining whether the defendant presents an extraordinary and compelling reason, but only where such change would produce a gross disparity between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed, and after full consideration of the defendant’s individualized circumstances.

Before the new 1B1.13 was adopted last year, some Circuits ruled that judges – who remain free to consider other factors as being “extraordinary and compelling” – could consider changes in the law as a basis for compassionate release. Others flatly refused to approve such bases for compassionate release. When the Circuit split reached the Supreme Court a year ago, the DOJ urged SCOTUS to wait to consider the issue until the USSC adopted its new policy statement as Congress required.

Now that the Commission has adopted new rules, DOJ is arguing in multiple cases that the Commission exceeded its authority by making the change.

“What [DOJ] said very early on is that their nationwide litigation position was that they are objecting to this provision as an overstep from the Sentencing Commission,” said University of Chicago law professor Erica Zunkel.

A February Northern District of Georgia court decision complained the DOJ had “contradicted itself” by arguing that the Commission doesn’t have the power to answer questions it once urged the Commission to answer:

The DOJ has previously argued that courts should refrain from addressing the retroactivity question because “it should be addressed first by the Commission.” The Commission has now addressed the issue. How can the Commission have the authority to address the question but exceed that authority by addressing the question? This argument lacks merit.

The issue is currently before other district and appeals courts. Gleeson and others expect it will reach the Supreme Court.

moonalice240405When it does, expect Debevoise to be there. Unfortunately, Judge Gleeson himself will not be: as a member of the Sentencing Commission, he will recuse himself from participating in a case arguing the Commission’s authority.

To the moon, DOJ! To the moon!

Bloomberg Law, Debevoise, DOJ Sentencing Reform Clash Could Hit Supreme Court (March 21, 2024)

United States v. Allen, Case No. 1:09-cr-320, 2024 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 28049 (NDGa, February 12, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

What To Know In Applying For Criminal History Sentence Reduction – Update for October 31, 2023

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.

RETROACTIVE GUIDELINES BECOME EFFECTIVE – WHAT NOW?

mrexplainer230828Tomorrow, the first Guidelines amendments in five years will become effective, including the two retroactive criminal history Guidelines, the first retroactive guidelines in almost a decade. Although the Sentencing Commission adopted the new compassionate release Guideline – USSG § 1B1.13 – by a 4-3 vote, a Congress preoccupied with Ukraine, government funding, and a House of Representatives paralyzed by lack of a Speaker, was not motivated to use its veto.

I’ve gotten a lot of questions about the two retroactive Guidelines. Here’s a little guidance.

A Guidelines amendment doesn’t help anyone who’s already been sentenced unless it is designated as being retroactive. There haven’t been many over 34 years. If the amendment is retroactive, it will be listed in USSG § 1B1.10(c).

The two retroactive Guidelines are found in Amendment 821. Part A of the amendment cuts “Status Points” – the two points added to criminal history scores when the offense was committed while on probation, parole or supervised release from another crime – by one point for people with seven or more criminal history points and eliminates them altogether for people with six or fewer criminal history points.

There are no eligibility limitations under this part of the amendment based on crime type, violence, or weapons but these are factors a court may consider in determining whether to grant a sentence reduction.

Part B of the Amendment creates a new USSG § 4C1.1 that provides a decrease of two offense levels for “Zero-Point Offenders” (no criminal history points) whose offense did not involve specific aggravating factors:

• No adjustment under USSG § 3A1.4 (terrorism);

• Defendant did not use violence or threats of violence in the offense;

• The offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury;

• The offense of conviction is not a sex offense;

conditions231031• Defendant did not personally cause substantial financial hardship;

• Defendant did not possess, receive, purchase, transport, transfer, sell, or otherwise dispose of a firearm or other dangerous weapon (or induce another participant to do so) in the offense;

• The offense is not covered by USSG § 2H1.1 (involving individual rights);

•  Defendant did not receive an adjustment under § 3A1.1 (Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim) or § 3A1.5 (Serious Human Rights Offense); and

• Defendant did not receive an adjustment under § 3B1.1 (aggravating role) and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise under 21 USC § 848.

People with release dates before February 1, 2024, will not be able to receive a reduction in their sentences.

To get the retroactive Guideline reduction, you file a motion under 18 USC § 3582(c)(2). There’s no exhaustion of administrative remedies – no need to send a copout to the warden – before filing. You simply write a motion and file it.

A motion should first show the court that you are eligible for the reduction. That’s not always a slam dunk. For the status point reduction, if taking off the one or two points you will save does not drop you to a lower Criminal History Category, “status point” retroactivity won’t help you. For the “zero point” reduction, you have to show that you meet the conditions.

Eligibility is a legal question. You are or you aren’t. But once the eligibility is established, it becomes a matter of the judge’s discretion. The court can give you a sentence reduction that cannot be more than the bottom of your new sentencing range. But the judge may decide to give you less than the bottom of the new range or even give you nothing at all. And what the judge decides as far as the amount of reduction you can get is unreviewable.

goodboy200903For that reason, a well-written motion for sentence reduction will not only explain to the court about your history and the offense but also cite post-sentencing reasons – such as a good disciplinary record or a history of programming – that convince the court that the reduction is deserved and consistent with the sentencing factors of 18 USC § 3553(a).

A note on below-Guidelines sentences: Section 1B1.10 suggests to the court that it may grant you a reduction, but “a reduction comparably less than the amended guideline range… may be appropriate.” The Guideline gives the example of someone who was sentenced 20% below his original sentencing range. In that case, 1B1.10 suggests, “a reduction of approximately 20 percent below the minimum term of imprisonment provided by the amended guideline range… would amount to a comparable reduction and may be appropriate.”

Sentencing Law and Policy, Gearing up for new guidelines amendments becoming law and working through criminal history retroactivity (October 25, 2023)

Alan Ellis, How Zero-Point Offender Change Should Work Retroactively (October 6, 2023)

USSC, Materials Relating To The 2023 Criminal History Amendment

– Thomas L. Root

Hair-Splitting on § 924(c) Sentence Stacking – Update for September 28, 2023

Leave a comment

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

6TH CIRCUIT REFUSES EN BANC ON STACKED § 924(C) SENTENCES

Sentencestack170404Tim Carpenter used a gun in a string of Hobbs Act robberies. He ended up with 105 years when he was sentenced before the First Step Act, which reduced mandatory minimum sentences for stacked 18 USC § 924(c) offenses. But Tim’s sentence was vacated because of errors, and he was not resentenced until after First Step became law.

First Step, if applied to Tim’s sentencing, would reduce his § 924(c) mm sentence from 105 to 25 years. But despite the First Step’s retroactivity provision extending its benefits to defendants awaiting sentencing, and despite Tim’s pre-FSA sentence being thrown out, a three-judge panel held that Tom had to be resentenced under the old version of the statute.

First Step § 403(b) provides that the new § 924(c) sentencing statute would apply to offenses committed before the Act “if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment.” The Circuit believes that if a defendant was sentenced for a § 924(c) offense before December 2018 – even if the sentence was vacated later – any new § 924(c) sentence would have to be imposed under the old law.

Last week, the 6th denied en banc review, although six judges wanted to revisit the issue. Judge Bloomekatz spoke for all dissenters in an opinion that some commentators think was an effort to get at least one Supreme Justice’s attention:

The real human costs that this esoteric legal issue presents also should not be overlooked. Because our circuit has split from every other to reach this issue, defendants in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee will often have to serve decades longer sentences than those in most of the other states. Timothy Carpenter proves this point. His sentence is eighty years longer than it would be if he had been resentenced in the seventeen states that comprise the 3rd, 4th, and 9th Circuits. The resulting sentencing disparity… should give us pause enough to consider the decision as a full court. Indeed, the circuit split, the federal government’s position, the dissent from then-Judge Barrett in United States v. Uriate, and the dueling opinions on this en banc petition underscore that the scope of the retroactivity provision is far from clear.

Writing in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog, Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman said, “I am pretty sure this Timothy Carpenter has already served 10+ year in prisons, and so may soon be eligible for a reduction in sentence under the ‘unusually long sentences’ criteria in the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s proposed new [1B1.13] ‘Compassionate Release’ policy statement.”

circuitsplit220919In his legal blog, UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh said of the opinion, “The en banc denial—which garners two dissentals—solidifies a circuit split, so keep an eye on this one.”

United States v. Carpenter, Case No 22-1198 (6th Cir., September 18, 2023)

United States v. Uriate, 975 F.3d 596 (7th Cir. 2020)

Sentencing Law and Policy, Notable debate among Sixth Circuit judges as court turns down en banc review of “resentencing retroactivity” after FIRST STEP Act (September 20, 2023)

The Volokh Conspiracy, Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions (September 22, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Mr. Explainer’s “How-to” On Applying For Retroactivity – Update for August 28, 2023

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.

RETROACTIVITY – WHAT HAPPENS NOW?

mrexplainer230828Last Friday, I reported on the United States Sentencing Commission’s  August 24 action making two of its Guidelines amendments from last April retroactive. Today, I have asked Mr. Explainer to tell people just how prisoners can go about applying for a shorter sentence.

Over 85,000 Federal Bureau of Prisons inmates have either had status points applied in their Guidelines sentencing calculations or had no criminal history points to begin with.  However, the Sentencing Commission estimated in its May 2023 Impact Analysis that only about 11,500 prisoners will be eligible for a lower sentencing range due to the status-point change and about 7,250 prisoners will be eligible for a lower sentencing range based upon the “zero-point” change.

Who Should File: The Dept of Justice complained to the Commission that regardless of who is eligible for a reduced sentence, most zero-point offenders or those with status points are likely to move for a reduction anyway. This would flood the courts, critics complained (many of whom have predicted 17 of the last three times changes in the law or Guidelines did so).

ineligible230828Still, history suggests that if you aren’t eligible, you should save a stamp. Motions that are dead on arrival only gum up the works for people who have meritorious issues and are already waiting too long for a judicial response.

Are you eligible? First, figure out whether applying zero-point or status-point to your Guidelines would change your sentencing range. This is important: If after you adjust your Guidelines for zero-point or status-point, your sentence is within or below your adjusted sentencing range, you are ineligible. Period. Do not pass “go.”

Example: Mike Methdealer had zero points and was a Crim I. His Guideline sentencing range was 135-168, but his judge gave him a break, sentencing him to 120 months, his mandatory minimum. Applying zero-point, his Guidelines fall to 108-135, but he still has a 120-month mandatory minimum. Mike is not eligible.

Example: Rick Recidivist had six criminal history points, putting him at the top of Category III. Two of those were status points. Take those away, and he would have four points, putting him at the bottom of Crim Category III. Rick, too, is not eligible.

Even worse, Rick was sentenced as a Guidelines career offender. Definitely not eligible.

Example: Sammy Snitch had a guideline sentencing range of 188-235 months. But he rolled on his co-defendants, and the judge gave him a four-level 5K1.1 departure to 121 months. Applying his status-point reduction would drop his range to 168-210 months. Special rules apply to people with 5K1.1 sentences, and he would be eligible to have his 121 month reduced proportionately.

Things are especially tough for zero-point men and women, who must meet all of the conditions listed in new USSC § 4C1.1: (1) no USSG § 3A1.4 terrorism adjustment; (2) no violence or threats of violence; (3) no one got hurt; (4) no sex offense; (5) the defendant did not personally cause “substantial financial hardship” (defined in Application Note 4(F) of the Commentary to USSG § 2B1.1); (6) no gun involved in the offense; (7) the offense did not involve individual rights under USSG § 2H1.1; (8) no USSG §3A1.1 adjustment for a hate crime or vulnerable victim or  USSG §3A1.5 for serious human rights offense; and (9) no adjustment under USSG  §3B1.1 for role in the offense and offense was not a 21 USC § 848 continuing criminal enterprise.

When to File: You can file for the reduction as early as November 1, 2023. However, no court is allowed to let the reduction become effective before February 1, 2024.

How to file: The filing you are making is under 18 USC 3582(c)(2) and USSG 1B1.10. There are two components to your showing. One, you have to prove that you are eligible. Two, you have to convince the judge that you are worthy of the reduction.

A judge has almost complete discretion to grant you the reduction up to the bottom of your adjusted range. You have to sell yourself – especially your post-sentence record – to the court.

Who to Hire: No one can answer this for you. You could prepare and file a motion yourself.  You could hire a lawyer or a writing service, remember that in the past (such as the drugs-minus-two in 2014 and Section 404 crack motions after the First Step Act), many district courts appointed the Federal Public Defender to represent eligible prisoners. Be sure you’re not eligible to get it for free from the FPD before you spend good commissary money on a mouthpiece.

phonescam230828What Not to Do:  Speaking of people willing to take your money, the BOP last week issued a media advisory that a phone scam is going around where callers are identifying themselves as BOP employees to ask you to pay money to secure release to pre-release custody for your loved ones. Presumably, the BOP now takes Apple iTunes cards and Googleplay as well as postal money orders.

You can say a lot of things about the BOP, but it does not call people to demand their personal information or money. For now, you cannot buy $10,000 ankle monitors or use prepaid gift cards to buy people’s way out of BOP custody.

US Sentencing Commission, Public Meeting (August 24, 2023)

US Sentencing Commission, Retroactivity Impact Analysis of Parts A and B of the 2023 Criminal History Amendment (May 15, 2023)

Sentencing Law and Policy, US Sentencing Commission votes to make its new criminal history amendments retroactive and adopts new policy priorities (August 24, 2023)

Law360, Sentencing Commission Backs Retroactive Cuts For 1st Timers (August 25, 2023)

Forbes, Bureau of Prisons Warns of Scams (August 25, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Criminal History Guidelines Going Retro By Narrowest of Margins – Update for August 25, 2023

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 CLIFFHANGER SENDS CRIMINAL HISTORY CHANGES RETROACTIVE

reeves230706Sentencing Commission meetings – and admittedly, we don’t have many in our sample, because the USSC was moribund for the five years ending last August – are usually yawners. Chairman Carlton Reeves likes to talk and loves polite consensus. No one on the Commission is a bomb-thrower, and every the most vigorous policy disputes are cloaked in courtesy. Everyone – even the ex officio Dept of Justice member Jonathan J. Wroblewski – gets a turn at the mic.

That’s partly why yesterday’s meeting was so surprising.

The Commission approved the first retroactive application of a Guideline change in nine years, deciding that Amendment 821 – which lowers criminal history scores in some cases – should apply to people already sentenced. It also adopted policy priorities for the 2024 amendment cycle that include maybe amending how the guidelines treat acquitted conduct and assessing whether Bureau of Prisons practices are effective in meeting the purposes of sentencing.

Zero is Hero:  Right now, someone with zero or one criminal history point (a minor misdemeanor) is scored a Criminal History Category I. This rating provides the lowest sentencing range for any given Guidelines offense level. The Commission has adopted a new ”zero-point” Guidelines amendment, which added Section 4C1.1 to the Guidelines. The new section will grant people with zero criminal history points who meet a long list of other conditions (such as no guns or violence, no sex offenses) a 2-level reduction in their Guidelines offense level. The practical effect will be that the person’s advisory sentencing range will drop two levels (such as from Level 30 (97-121 months) to Level 28 (78-97 months).

Status Seekers: At the other end of criminal history, the Guidelines have always assigned an extra two points if the current offense was committed while someone was under supervision. Supervision could be probation or parole from a prior offense or supervised release from a prior federal offense. The two points (called “status points”) could be a snare for the unwary. A defendant involved in a conspiracy of several years duration might pick up a DUI offense during the period the conspiracy is going on. Even if the local judge lets him or her off with unsupervised probation, that local conviction would add 2 criminal history points and quite likely land the defendant in a higher criminal history category.

nostatus230825Last April, the Sentencing Commission abolished all status points for people who had fewer than seven accumulated criminal history points driving their criminal history category. For those with seven or more points, only one status point would be added rather than two. In making this change, the USSC determined that status points had little to no relevance in the accurate determination of a criminal history profile.

As it must do whenever it lowers the Guidelines, the Commission last May opened a proceeding to determine whether those changes should benefit people who have already been sentenced as well as those who have yet to be sentenced. This retroactivity proceeding ended with yesterday’s meeting.

Chairman Reeves opened the meeting with a full-throated endorsement of making the criminal history amendments retroactive. Commissioners Luis Restrepo (Judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals) and Laura Mate (Federal Public Defender) followed him, voicing their support for full retroactivity.

I yawned. It hardly mattered at this point that the Commission’s audio feed was garbled, because retroactivity was up 3-0, and it seemed that victory was a foregone conclusion. A done deal.

But then, Commissioner Claire Murray (a former Assistant Attorney General) delivered an ordered and rational argument against retroactivity, followed by complementary arguments against going retro by Commissioners Candice Wong (US Attorney’s Office for DC) and Claria Horn Boom (US District Judge from both districts of Kentucky). Suddenly, the vote was 3-3, and retroactivity was tottering.

It thus fell to Commissioner John Gleeson (Wall Street lawyer and former federal judge) to decide whether 18,000 or so federal prisoners would be eligible to have their sentences adjusted to what USSC doctrine now believed was appropriate. Judge Gleeson did not disappoint.

gleesonB160314Speaking in quiet, measured tones, Judge Gleeson observed that the opponents of retroactivity complained that the changes made by Amendment 821 “do not remedy a systemic wrong and thus could not rectify a fundamental unfairness in the guidelines manual,” and thus the need for finality and the administrative burden placed on courts by retroactivity meant that the changes should not be made retro. “In my view,” Judge Gleeson said, “it is hard to overstate how wrong that argument is.”

Judge Gleeson highlighted the disproportionate impact the two criminal history guidelines had had on minorities. He said that 43% of the prisoners affected by the retroactive change in status points are black and 20% are Hispanic. About 69% of those benefitting from the zero-point change are Hispanic. Judge Gleeson said that while

“there’s no such thing as fully remedying and racial disparity that’s been built into our criminal justice system for so long… making these amendments retroactive will have a tangible effect for people of color… Overreliance on criminal history can drive pernicious racial disparities in sentencing… we [have] visited fundamental unfairness on thousands of people through guidelines that judges follow… [that] we know from the data are wrong… At the receiving end of these sentences there are three-dimensional human beings.”

Final vote for retroactivity was 4-3.

retro160110The retroactivity order prohibits district courts from granting any change in sentences prior to February 1, 2024. The Commission voted that delay to ensure that people who might be released will have the opportunity to participate in reentry programs and transitional services that will increase the likelihood of successful reentry to society.

The Commission estimated in its July 2023 Impact Analysis that retroactive application would carry a meaningful impact for many currently incarcerated individuals:

• 11,495 prisoners will have a lower sentencing range due to the status-point change, with a possible sentence reduction of 11.7%, on average.

• 7,272 prisoners will be eligible for a lower sentencing range based upon the “Zero-Point” change, with an average possible sentence reduction of 17.6%.

Eligible prisoners will have to file a motion with their sentencing courts under 18 USC § 3582(c)(2) seeking the reduction. The district court is entitled to grant no more than a reduction to the bottom of the revised sentencing range (with special rules for people who have had departures for assisting the government), and no issues may be considered other than the revised criminal history score. Whether to grant as much a reduction as possible, only part of the possible reduction, or none at all is entirely up to the judge.

US Sentencing Commission, Public Meeting (August 24, 2023)

Sentencing Law and Policy, US Sentencing Commission votes to make its new criminal history amendments retroactive and adopts new policy priorities (August 24, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root