Tag Archives: Second Chance Act

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

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

No Second Chance for Federal Elderly Offender Home Detention? – Update for May 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.

SECOND CHANCE ACT REAUTHORIZATION BILL INTRODUCED, BUT NOTHING’S IN IT FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS

second170119Republican Carol Miller (WV) and 10 co-sponsors have introduced a bill to reauthorize the Second Chance Act of 2007 by extending a number of its grants and programs intended to benefit states and counties for prisoner reentry after serving their sentences. All of which is good.

Only two provisions in the 2007 Act are of interest to federal prisoners–the provision authorizing (but not requiring) the Federal Bureau of Prisons to grant up to 12 months of halfway house and the Elderly Offender Home Detention pilot program.

The right to grant up to 12 months of home confinement–enshrined in 18 USC § 3624(c)–remains unaffected by the proposed bill.

Parenthetically, prisoners complain all the time that the BOP is denying them their Second Chance Act rights to 12 months of halfway house, but the Act only lets the BOP grant up to 12 months of halfway house (it was a max of 6 months before that): the BOP is not obligated to grant as much as a single day of halfway house time if it deems it unnecessary or undesirable to do so.

elderly190109Given that the SCA of 2007 introduced the elderly offender pilot home detention program, which let the BOP send nonviolent offenders age 60+ home for the last third of their sentences, I hoped the reauthorization bill would extend the date of that program. It expired September 30, 2023. Unfortunately, the reauthorization bill does not mention the EOHD program at all.

EOHD is a favorite of Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sen Charles Grassley (R-IA). If the bill passes the House and goes to the Senate, there is a decent chance the EOHD will be added before the bill gets to the Senate floor. However, the bill would have to make it to a vote in the House first, a tall order given that chamber’s dysfunction this year.

HR 8020, Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2024

– Thomas L. Root

Elderly Offender Program Dies – Update for October 10, 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.

LAW FORCES END OF ELDERLY HOME DETENTION PROGRAM

The Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Elderly Offender Home Detention pilot program (EOP) is over for now, Whether it will ever return is an open question.

okboomer231010Originally adopted as a pilot program in the Second Chance Act of 2007, the EOP was authorized at a single BOP facility only, permitting nonviolent offenders who were 66 years old to serve the final months of their sentences at home. The First Step Act expanded the program to the entire BOP system in 2018, allowing “offenders who are over 60 years of age, have served two-thirds of their sentence, are not convicted of a crime of violence, and do not have a history of escape to be placed on home confinement for the remaining portion of their sentence.”

A great idea: take nonviolent, unlikely-to-offend-again oldsters who are costing the BOP a ton of money for healthcare, and send them to home confinement. OK, Boomer!

But tucked into a corner of the EOP statute at 34 USC 60541(g)(3) was the limitation that the EOP would remain a “pilot program and shall be carried out during fiscal years 2019 through 2023.” Fiscal 2023 ended on September 30th.

By all accounts, the program worked well. Since 2018, the BOP has placed over 1,220 people at home under the program with no reports of new criminal conduct.

Writing in The Hill, former BOP Director Hugh Hurwitz noted a July 2022 Sentencing Commission study showed that the recidivism rate for people over 50 is less than half that of those under 50. “Under the pilot program,” Hurwitz wrote, “only those over 60 are considered, and they can’t have any history of violence, thus making their recidivism rate even lower.”

The Vera Institute of Justice reported six years ago that the cost of keeping older people locked up “is double that of housing younger ones, due to health care expenses.” Even a decade ago, the BOP spent a fifth of its budget on older inmates. The average prisoner age is up about 8% since then. “People serving time on home confinement see their own doctors (while being monitored electronically),” Hurwitz wrote, “and bear the costs themselves, saving taxpayers millions.”

notokboomer231010Walter Pavlo wrote in Forbes that “many are calling for EOP’s renewal. Budget constraints, administrative changes, and shifts in policy priorities left the EOP program hanging in the balance. This termination has raised concerns among advocates and experts who believe that the program’s end is a step in the wrong direction.”

Sadly, reauthorization of the program will require action by a Congress that is not producing much in the way of legislation and is awaiting reauthorization of a program that will send prisoners to home confinement – even a proven one that makes perfect sense – may have a long wait. In fact, I doubt that we will see the program return in the next five years.

Not OK, Boomer.

The Hill, Moving elderly prisoners home saves taxpayer dollars without sacrificing safety (September 27, 2023)

Forbes, Old and Facing Prison (October 7, 2023)

Dept of Justice, First Step Act Annual Report (April 2023)

Vera Institute, Aging Out (December 2017)

– Thomas L. Root

House Subcommittee Holds Oversight Hearing on First Step, and Tales Abound – Update for October 21, 2019

Leave a comment

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

A TALE OF TWO BOPs

twocities191022At a House of Representatives Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security oversight hearing last Thursday on implementation of the First Step Act, it seemed at times that legislators were hearing about two different Bureaus of Prisons. One was staffed by dedicated professionals who were rapidly “developing guidance and policies to ensure appropriate implementation” of First Step. The other BOP was cutting halfway house, providing inadequate programs and “acting in ways that result in lengthier and less productive terms of incarceration despite the obvious will of Congress.”

Dr. Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, the veteran BOP hand brought back from retirement to take over the agency 12 weeks ago in the wake of the Jeffrey Epstein suicide fiasco, told the subcommittee that sentence reductions under the newly-retroactive Fair Sentencing Act has resulted in over 2,000 orders for release, with the release thus far of over 1,500 of those inmates. She told the Subcommittee that BOP “staff also immediately began the challenge of re-programming our Good Conduct Time (GCT) sentence computations to reflect the change. As a result, on July 19, 2019, when the GCT change took effect commensurate with the Attorney General’s release of the Risk and Needs Assessment System, the Bureau executed timely releases of over 3,000 inmates.”

This will come as surprising news to the thousands of people whose sentences have not yet had the revised GCT computations applied to their sentences.

She also reported that since First Step was signed into law, 95 inmates have received compassionate release (although she did not specify how many releasees were recommended by the BOP). She said the BOP has approved 328 inmates for the Elderly Offender Home Detention program, with 242 already on home detention and the balance awaiting placement.

wereonit191022Sawyer Hawk urged the Subcommittee to fund and approve expanded UNICOR purchasing approval, authorizing more agencies, nonprofits and governments to buy UNICOR products. She said UNICOR employment has fallen from 20,000 several decades ago to 11,000 now, but that expansion of the pool of eligible buyers in the First Step Act assured that the number of UNICOR inmate employees would increase.

Sawyer Hawk implied that UNICOR, GED, literacy and drug programs would be among the programs for which earned-time credit was given once the PATTERN risk and needs assessment system was implemented. Apparently, the independent review committee that developed PATTERN also “selected programs to designate as evidence-based recidivism-reduction programs and productive activities,” according to Review Committee member John P. Walters, but neither he nor any other government witness identified what the programs would be.

Sawyer Hawk testified that training of BOP staff is underway for application of PATTERN as well as a yet-undefined system of assessing an inmate’s needs for programming. The suggestion is that BOP staff will select the programs that an inmate can take for earned-time credit according to the individual needs of the inmate for such programming. Sawyer-Hawk said, “The Bureau already has in place a robust Needs Assessment system, and we are working with experts in the field and research consultants to further enhance it.”

Walters tried to assuage concerns about PATTERN, telling the Subcommittee that the commission is working on “somewhat substantial” changes aimed in particular at removing possible bias in the tool. He said the contractors who developed the PATTERN system have run 200 additional hours of analysis at the independent review commission’s direction with the hopes of weeding out bias. “Obviously we want the instrument to be valid, but we also want the instrument to capture real differences and not bias,” Walters said.

A much less rosy picture was painted by New York City Federal Defender executive director David E. Patton and Professor Melissa Hamilton. Patton pointed out that current DOJ data show 49% of federal inmates complete no programs, 82% of such inmates receive no technical/vocational courses or UNICOR employment, and 57% of federal inmates needing drug treatment receive none. “Relatedly,” Patton said, “we are deeply troubled that there is still no needs assessment as required under the FSA, and that the BOP does not expect one to even be available for testing until the second quarter of 2020.”

Hamilton complained that PATTERN was being developed in an opaque process, one in which routine requests for release of the underlying data – something the U.S. Sentencing Commission does as a matter of course – and Freedom of Information Act requests have been ignored. The Brennan Center for Justice “requested release of information on the BRAVO/BRAVO-R tools that the DOJ Report indicates are foundations for PATTERN,” Hamilton testified, “yet were rebuffed because of proprietary claims. This initial assertion of secrecy is deeply concerning.”

casemanagers191022Patton also questioned the BOP’s commitment to halfway house placement. The BOP said in a 2017 memorandum that “due to fiscal constraints,” the average length of halfway house stay was “likely to decline to about 120-125 days.” However, Patton asserted, “anecdotal information from prisons indicates that counsellors have been told to limit the amount of prerelease time in reentry centers to even less than 120 days. At one prison, individuals reported seeing a printed sign on the counsellor’s wall reading: ‘We will put you in for a maximum of 90 days of RRC time, but it will most likely be less. Yes we know what the Second Chance Act says’.”

Rep. David Cicilline (D-Rhode Island), pointedly asked Sawyer-Hawk why people close to release whose dates were advanced by the additional 7 days-a-year good time were not having halfway house dates changed accordingly. Sawyer Hawk expressed surprise, saying that this was not happening throughout the system, and she would look into whether it was happening in New England.

Subcommittee’s questions focused primarily on the heating crisis at MDC Brooklyn, the Epstein suicide at MDC New York, BOP staffing levels nationwide and the PATTERN programming. One noteworthy moment came at the beginning of questions from Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York). He read a statement from the family of Troy Pine, the man Noel Francisco allegedly murdered in Providence, Rhode Island, several weeks ago. Francisco was released early because of the retroactive Fair Sentencing Act, creating a firestorm of criticism over the First Step Act.

Pine’s nephew urged people not to blame Trump or the First Step Act. “Anyone who speaks my uncle’s name, please speak it in a way that will draw people together, and bring help to people in these communities, including human beings who have been locked up for too long,” Jeffries read from the statement.

A Washington Times column on Saturday agreed: “The First Step Act is working. According to the FBI, the violent crime rate is at its second-lowest point since 1991. As previously stated, thousands of people have returned home as a result of First Step, more than 1,700 releases as a result of the crack cocaine/powdered cocaine disparity provision alone. And this case is the first reported incident of a First Step Act recipient re-committing a serious crime.

“But even one tragedy is one too many, and we still have much work to do. Our system is still broken, and we should focus on reforms that offer second chances, but more importantly, keep us safe.”

House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Oversight Hearing on the Federal Bureau of Prisons and Implementation of the First Step Act (Oct. 17)

Washington Times, First Step Act is working, but the criminal justice system is still broken (Oct. 19)

Providence Journal, Nephew of Providence murder victim: Don’t blame First Step Act (Oct 18)

– Thomas L. Root

Nuts and Bolts of Elderly Home Detention – Update for January 9, 2019

Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Thomas L. Root

You’ve Got Questions, We’ve Got Blank Stares – Update for December 27, 2018

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.

QUESTIONS ANYONE?

questions181227Yesterday, we presented a précis on the First Step Act. It didn’t help much. We have logged over 600 emails asking questions about the effect of the First Step Act on the sentences of existing inmates, and they continue to pour in.

Did we not make everything pellucidly clear?

Apparently not. Here are the most popular questions and our answers:

•   What sentencing changes are retroactive?

Only people with pre-Fair Sentencing Act crack sentences get retroactive relief. There is no retroactive relief for 18 USC 924(c) stacking, for denial of safety valve, or for 851 sentencing enhancements.

That is not to say that these changes will not come, just like the Fair Sentencing Act – which conservatives would not vote for if it was retroactive – finally became retroactive eight years later. But for now, the people with 924(c) stacked sentences, 851 life and 20-year sentences, and non-safety valve sentences are out of luck.

•   How about the seven days extra good time? Is it retroactive?

Yes.

•   When will I get the seven days extra good time?

This question is on everyone’s lips. The change in federal inmates’ sentence computation will be performed by the Bureau of Prisons’ Designation and Sentence Computation Center in Grand Prairie, Texas. It should not be difficult to do, and it is hardly as though BOP did not know this was coming. However, the BOP is a bureaucracy, and no one in a bureaucracy is going to be daring or self-starting enough to throw the switch just because some blow-dried President in Washington, D.C., makes something binding federal law.

As of last Friday afternoon, DSCC said it was waiting for guidance from the Dept. of Justice. Inasmuch as Monday and Tuesday were federal holidays, we doubt anything was forthcoming on those days. Whether DSCC is even staffed, due to the partial government shutdown, is not clear.

Yet, the BOP faces liability for holding people past their release dates, and as of last Friday, nearly everyone’s release date changed. We talked to DSCC today, and we were told that it still awaits direction from DOJ, and does not expect that for two to three weeks. No one appears to be in a hurry there.

That’s the long answer. The short answer is that we don’t know.

creditsign181227•   How about programs I have already completed? Are credits retroactive?

No, the credits are not. However, a change in 18 USC 3621(h) provides that “beginning on the date of enactment of this subsection, the Bureau of Prisons may begin to expand any evidence-based recidivism reduction programs and productive activities that exist at a prison as of such date, and may offer to prisoners who successfully participate in such programs and activities the incentives and rewards described in subchapter D.” We cautiously interpret this to mean that the BOP can start giving credits for programs successfully completed at any time after last Friday. This does not require the BOP to do so, but it is out there.

•   Are all 924(c) offenses ineligible for earned-time credit?

The Act excludes from earned time credits any offense of conviction under “924(c), relating to unlawful possession or use of a firearm during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.” We read this to exclude all 924(c)s, whether for a crime of violence or for drugs.

•   If you have a 2-level enhancement to your drug conviction for a gun, are you excluded?

No, only a statutory 924(c) conviction excludes you.

miracle181227•   When is First Step effective?

Unless a law says otherwise, it is effective when the president signs it. But do not expect miracles. For the earned time credits, the Attorney General has seven months (until late July 2019) to develop the risk assessment system. The BOP then has 180 days to apply the risk assessment system to everyone and identify the programs that it believes will reduce recidivism (by late January 2020). The BOP then has two years (by January 2022) to fully ramp up the system.

During the initial two years of the program, the First Step Act anticipates, there will be more people wanting programs than there will be program space. The BOP is to put people nearest the end of their sentences in the programs first.

The Elderly Home Detention Program has never had a BOP program statement that implemented it, because it was limited in time and location. The BOP will have to develop procedures to process and judge applications. Nothing prevents someone from applying right away – and we recommend using 34 USC 60541(g)(5)(A) as a guide – but do not expect speedy processing.

Our take about compassionate release, however, is that Congress intends that it be implemented immediately. What is more, the BOP has procedures for dealing with compassionate release applications. While its history of doing so is not especially honorable, there is no need for delay while the BOP spools up a program statement on how to process them.

Nothing else in First Step should require any time for implementation. New or renewed requests for home confinement instead of halfway house, transfers to closer-to-home locations and the extra seven days should be immediate. How quickly the BOP updates sentences to account for the extra seven days is anyone’s guess, but a lot of people with short time will need that done immediately. (See answer above)

•   How do you file for a reduction in a crack sentence because of FSA retroactivity?

You file a motion under 18 USC 3582(c)(2). You should check with the federal public defender in the district in which you were sentenced. Many court ordered the FPD to represent people eligible under 3582(c)(2).

•   Are Guidelines 4B1.1. career offenders excluded from anything under First Step?

No. If you are excluded, it is because of a statute you were convinced of violating.

•   If I was convicted of a crime of violence or a sex offense in my past, does that exclude me from getting earned time credits?

No. Only your current offense will exclude you.

• Who is excluded?

We’ll cover that tomorrow.

now181227•   How soon can people start receiving credits?

Credits could start to accrue as early as the end of July 2019. The Act anticipates that it could take up to two years for the program to completely spool up, and preference will be given to the people who are short time first. This could mean that people with longer dates will not start getting earned time credits right away.

However, there had been discussion that BOP could be expansive in its interpretation of what constituted programs that lessened recidivism, and it could even include UNICOR employment and adult education classes.

•    Did your 21 USC 851 10-year sentence drop to 5 years?

No. Drug sentence enhanced by an 851 notice due to prior drug or state convictions changed, but only natural life (fell to 25 years to life), and 20 years (fell to 15 years to life). Nothing beyond that. And the change is not retroactive.

•   If you are excluded from getting earned time credits, how much halfway house/home confinement will you get?

The Second Chance Act still applies, and theoretically, you are entitled to up to 12 months of halfway house. The BOP has been very stingy with halfway house in the last year and a half, however, and no one knows what the BOP will do.

•   For EOHD, do you serve two-thirds of your sentence or two-thirds of the time between you start and you get good-time release?

If you got 180 months, for example, you serve 120 months. If you get EOHD, you will be on home confinement for 33 months. At 1053 months, you are released on good-time release.

•   If you get 12 months off for RDAP, can you get another 12 months off for earned time credits?

Theoretically, the one does not affect the other. But the BOP has the option to credit you with more halfway house or a shorter sentence, and no one knows how the BOP will decide to apply the earned time credits. No one in Congress discussed this, or, to our knowledge, even thought about it. Some things, like Donald Rumsfeld liked to say, are unknown unknowns.

S.756, First Step Act, passed into law Dec. 21, 2018

– Thomas L. Root