Tag Archives: USSC

Trump (Finally) Rolls Out Sentencing Commission Slate, Albeit Unbalanced One – Update for August 20, 2020

Leave a comment

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

TRUMP FINALLY DECIDES TO NOMINATE NEW SENTENCING COMMISSION MEMBERS, AND FAMM SHOUTS “NOT SO FAST!”

The U.S. Sentencing Commission has lacked a full slate of commissioners for the entirety of Trump Administration, and has not even had a quorum since the First Step Act passed in December 2018. That is why no sentencing guideline has been amended since the November 2018 amendments went into force.

Last week, the White House announced nominees for the vacant Commissioner slots (which persons must be approved by the Senate). They include Judge K. Michael Moore of Florida, to be chairman; Judge Claria Horn Boom of Kentucky; Judge Henry E. Hudson of Virginia; John G. Malcolm, Vice President for the Institute for Constitutional Government and the Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation; and Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo of Pennsylvania.

HudsonA170811The bad news is that four of the five nominees have been Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and that three of those four are sitting judges as well. The worse news is that Judge Henry Hudson, who has the well-deserved nickname of “Hang-‘em-High Henry,” is one of the nominees. A lonely piece of good news is that Judge Luis Restrepo comes from a public defender background.

How’s that for balance?

hudsonB170811“The administration has put forth a slate that is all white, mostly male, and lacking in diverse experiences or backgrounds,”  Sakira Cook, director of the justice reform program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, told NPR. “It is critically important that the Sentencing Commission reflects the diversity of background, experience, and expertise that would make the work of the Commission most effective. It is also important to note that at least two of the candidates have records or expressed views on sentencing issues that raise serious concerns.”

FAMM (formerly Families Against Mandatory Minimums) wrote to Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), and ranking minority member Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) last week to urge them to refrain from acting on the nominations until next year:

There are less than 20 legislative days before the election. That is not nearly enough time to give nominees to this important agency the thorough examination and consideration they deserve – and that the people who will be subject to the Commission’s decisions deserve.

FAMM noted specifically that one of the Sentencing Commission’s urgent priorities will be to “address a federal prison system that has been overwhelmed by the spread of COVID-19. The deaths to date of 112 federal prisoners and at least one staff member compel serious reflection about various aspects of the federal prison system, including sentence lengths and early release mechanisms, over which the commission has some authority.”

privateprison200820(Note: The BOP hit 120 dead inmates a couple of days ago, being 114 in BOP custody and another six federal prisoners in private prisons. But no one seems want to count the people who are guests of the for-profits. That is perhaps a topic to cover for another day.)

Of course, what FAMM is really saying is that if the Senate waits until January, there may be a new President and a much different slate of commissioner nominees to consider.

The White House, President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate and Appoint Individuals to Key Administration Posts (August 12, 2020)

FAMM, Letter to Sens. Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein (August 14, 2020)

NPR, Concern Mounts Over Possible Trump Picks For Influential Crime Panel (August 19, 2020)

– Thomas L. Root

Sentencing Commission Redux – Update for June 25, 2020

Leave a comment

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

TRUMP MAY BE MOVING TO REPOPULATE SENTENCING COMMISSION

USSC170511The U.S. Sentencing Commission, a judicial-branch agency established by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, § 235(b)(3), 98 Stat. 2032 (1984), is responsible for promulgating and amending the Sentencing Guidelines that have profoundly influenced virtually every federal criminal sentence for the past 30 years (and in fact were mandatory from inception until 2005).

But the Commission – which customarily amends the Guidelines annually – has been unable to issue new or amended Guidelines since the end of 2018, because the terms of three of the five USSG members expired at the end of that year. Since then, the President has made one attempt to nominate replacements to the Commission without success. He may be about to try again.

NPR reported last week that the White House has been consulting Capitol Hill and the criminal justice community about four Republican candidates for two of the slots on the Commission, three of them federal judges and the other from the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation.

HudsonA170811Republican candidates include Senior US District Judge Henry Hudson (Eastern District Virginia), a former director of the US Marshals Service known as “Hang ‘Em High Henry” for his work as a local prosecutor. Hudson has a reputation for handing out long sentences. Another is Chief Judge K. Michael Moore (Southern District Florida), also a former director of the Marshals. Eastern District of Kentucky Judge Claria Horn Boom, a favorite of Senate Majority Leader Mitch hudsonB170811McConnell (R-Kentucky), is in the running, as is John Malcolm, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and a former AUSA. Malcolm helped then-candidate Trump put together a list of candidates in the event a Supreme Court vacancy opened up. Malcolm has reached out to allies across the political aisle to try to overhaul mandatory minimums.

One of the Commission slots is reserved for a Democrat. The President is proposing 3rd Circuit Appeals Judge L. Felipe Restrepo, a former public defender appointed to the judgeship by President Barack Obama.

NPR, Concerns Mount Over Possible Trump Picks For Influential Crime Panel (June 19)

– Thomas L. Root

Too Many Questions, Too Few Commissioners – Update for October 16, 2019

Leave a comment

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

DENIAL HIGHLIGHTS JUDICIAL SPLIT ON COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

compassion160208A key provision of the First Step Act allows federal courts to reduce sentences under the so-called compassionate release statutory provisions of 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) – which establishes an ‘extraordinary and compelling” reason standard – without needing a motion from the Bureau of Prisons. Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman said last week in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog that “if applied appropriately and robustly, this provision could and should enable many hundreds (and perhaps many thousands) of federal prisoners to have excessive prison sentences reduced.”

A decision last week in the Southern District of Iowa denying Les Brown compassionate release illustrates the conundrum. Under 28 USC § 994(t), the Sentencing Commission is directed to define “the criteria to be applied and a list of specific extraordinary and compelling examples” for grant of § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions. The Commission defined four examples, one medical, one due to age, one due to family circumstances, and one catch-all (that “there exists in the defendant’s case an extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination with, the reasons described in subdivisions (A) through (C)).”

Now the problem: The USSC has not updated its definition since the First Step Act passed. Instead, its policy statement still simply guides the Bureau of Prisons (which has traditionally been very resistant to an Sentencing Commission guidance). The new procedure mandated by the First Step Act calls for new guidance, but the Commission remains mute.

noquorum191016Sadly, there’s a reason for the USSC’s quiescence. The Commission cannot amend its policy statement because the agency lost its quorum last December, about two weeks before First Step passed, and it is still two commissioners short of a quorum. The Trump Administration apparently sees the Commission as a backwater for which no urgency exists in nominating replacement commissioners. For the foreseeable future, the Commission remains impotent, and the compassionate release policy cannot not be updated.

Some district courts have concluded this means the Commission lacks any applicable policy statement dictating when a judge can grant compassionate release. These courts have decided that this means the district judge can consider anything — or at least anything the BOP could have considered (whether it did or not) — when assessing a defendant’s motion.

But others have held that First Step merely lets them grant a motion for compassionate release if the BOP Director could have done the same under the guidelines and the old Program Statement. These courts hold that judges may not stray beyond the four bases listed in USSG §1B1.13.

Sentencestack170404Last week’s ruling by Senior Judge Robert Pratt is a thoughtful opinion about compassionate release, issued in response to defendant Les Brown’s motion to reduce his 510-month sentence. That sentence was pumped up by a 300-month second 18 USC §924(c) sentence, one that could no longer be imposed since passage of the First Step Act. While Judge Pratt finds that “much about Defendant’s situation is extraordinary and compelling,” he concluded “the Court cannot exercise its discretion to grant release at this time.”

The Judge calculated that even if First Step let him retroactively reduce the second § 924(c) sentence from 300 months to 60 months (which the Act doe not permit), Les would still face a total of 210 months in prison. As of now, he has served only 167 months, “a long stretch by any measure, and perhaps more than appropriate for Defendant’s crimes. Regardless, because Defendant would still be in prison under modern law, any sentencing disparity created by § 924(c) stacking does not, at least yet, provide an ‘extraordinary and compelling reason’ for compassionate release.”

Judge Pratt suggested that Les could come back at 210 months to make his argument. For what it’s worth, I believe that by then, Congress will have revisited the issue and made the § 924(c) sentencing change retroactive, just as it did with the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes to crack minimums.

Prof. Berman complained that “Judge Pratt refuses to use the legal tool available to him to reduce Brown’s sentence, and so Brown is now still slated to serve nearly another 30 years in prison(!) that neither Congress nor any judge views as in any way justified by any sound sentencing purposes.” He is correct. However, until higher courts resolve the conundrum of the missing USSC guidance (or the Commission regains a quorum, and fixes the statement on its own), the present confusion is going to work to the detriment of a lot of inmates.

United States v. Brown, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175424 (SD Iowa Oct. 8, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root

The Year of No Guidelines – Update for May 7, 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.

WHITHER GUIDELINES?

Guidelines red text and magnify glassThe first of May was both International Workers Day (for you Marxists) and Law Day (if you’re a lawyer). For the past 31 years, it has also customarily brought a package of Sentencing Guidelines amendments, each of which is to become effective on the following November 1st (six months hence) unless Congress objects, pursuant to 28 USC 994(p).

Not this year. For the fourth time in 31 years, the Commission will adopt no Guideline amendments to send to Congress. This has only happened before in  1996 and 1999, and more recently in 2017.

The problem is one of politics. The Sentencing Commission was established by Congress in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 as a permanent, independent agency within the judicial branch. The seven Commission members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for six-year terms. Commission members may be reappointed to one additional term, also with the advice and consent of the Senate. Three of the members must be federal judges, and no more than four may belong to the same political party. The Attorney General or his designee and the chair of the United States Parole Commission sit as non-voting members of the Commission.

No matter how important the Commission may be to federal inmates, Washington sees it as a political backwater. Already operating with only five members in 2017, the Commission’s voting membership fell further last year to four. Then, at the end of 2018, the terms of Judge William Pryor of the 11th Circuit and New York University law professor Rachel Barkow expired.

emptyroom190507For the past five months, the Commission has had only two voting members. Two more must be appointed and approved by the Senate just to have the minimum number needed for a meeting. Former Sentencing Commission chairwoman Patti Saris, who is Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, complained in a Law360.com article last week, “Today, the United States Sentencing Commission sits without a confirmed chair, or even a quorum of members. This severely impairs the commission’s ability to study further reforms. For example, with only two current commissioners, the commission is unable to pass amendments to make the sentencing guidelines consistent with the statutory provision expanding the “safety valve.” While the research and training activities of the commission continue, the commission needs a quorum.”

Meanwhile, the amendment cycle for 2018 has come and gone without action for the second time in three years. Thank heaven that the Guidelines, after 30 years of development, are perfect in every regard (said no one ever).

Law360.com, The First Step Act Is A Major Step For Sentencing Reform (Apr. 28)

– Thomas L. Root

First Step Act Beneficiaries By The Numbers – Update for January 25, 2019

Leave a comment

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

SENTENCING COMMISSION RELEASES FIRST STEP CHECKLIST, IMPACT STUDY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Thomas L. Root

USSC Commentary Can’t Expand Guideline Coverage? – Update for November 1, 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.

LISAStatHeader2small

GUIDELINES “CAREER OFFENDER” COMMENTARY GOES TOO FAR, 6TH CIRCUIT SUGGESTS

Jeff Havis attacked his sentence for gun possession by arguing that a prior Tennessee conviction for selling or delivering cocaine should not count as a “controlled substance offense” under the Guidelines to increase his base offense level. The 6th Circuit last week said it was foreclosed by a prior panel decision that the Tennessee offense did count under the Guidelines, and thus could not give Jeff the relief he wanted.

But remarkably, the opinion does not stop there. Instead, it held that Jeff’s complaint “has legs” despite a panel opinion to the contrary. Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court found the Guidelines not to violate the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine in Mistretta v. United States, because Congress has a chance to review amendments before they take effect and the United States Sentencing Commission must comply with the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act when it adopts them.

Is Sentencing Commission commentary not the last word?
Is Sentencing Commission commentary not the last word?

This is crucial, because Tennessee’s drug trafficking statute includes “attempts” to violate the statute within its definition, something the Guidelines does not include in its text. Thus, the Tennessee law is broader than the Guidelines, meaning the Tennessee statute should not count as a controlled substance offense. However, in the commentary to the Guidelines, the USSC expanded the Guidelines definition to include attempts.

This is a problem, the Circuit said. The procedural requirements governing amendment of Guidelines “are one piece of a larger puzzle. If the Commission can add to or amend the Guidelines solely through commentary, then it possesses a great deal more legislative power than Mistretta envisioned. This means that in order to keep the Sentencing Commission in its proper constitutional position — whatever that is exactly — courts must keep Guidelines text and Guidelines commentary, which are two different vehicles, in their respective lanes.

The 6th Circuit panel quietly begged Jeff to seek en banc review to overturn the prior precedent, and to put USSC commentary into limited role it should occupy.

United States v. Havis, Case No. 17-5772 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

2018 Guideline Amendments… The Rest of the Story – Update for April 17, 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. 

LISAStatHeader2small
2018 GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS HARD ON SYNTHETICS, EASIER ON PROBATION

As we reported last Friday, the U.S. Sentencing Commission killed the First Offender proposal by neglect, never mentioning it during the half-hour meeting last week at which the USSC adopted a slate of new amendments to the Guidelines Manual to be sent to Congress.

khat180417That’s not to say, however, that the Commissioners did nothing. They did vote to update the federal sentencing guidelines to address synthetic drugs. The amendments addressed synthetic cathinone (the active drug in African khat, used in bath salts) and synthetic cannabinoids, including K2. To address fentanyl, the USSC adopted a four-level sentencing enhancement for knowingly misrepresenting or knowingly marketing fentanyl or fentanyl analogues as another substance (a 50% increase in sentence).

release180417The Commission also adopted a new application note suggesting judges consider alternative sentencing options to prison for “nonviolent first offenders” whose applicable guideline range falls at 8-14 months or less. Eligible defendants must not have any prior convictions and must not have used violence, credible threats of violence, or possessed a firearm or other dangerous weapon in the offense. The alternatives include probation, halfway house confinement and house arrest.

The USSC also increased offense levels for certain Social Security fraud offenses to incorporate statutory changes, and adopted a non-exhaustive list of factors that courts may consider in determining whether a prior Indian tribal court conviction warrants an upward departure from the recommended sentencing range.

Nothing in the proposed amendments, which will be effective November 1, 2018, applies to people who have already been sentenced.

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (Preliminary) (Apr. 12, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Not With a Bang But A Whimper Does ‘First Offender’ Die – Update for April 13, 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. 

LISAStatHeader2small
SENTENCING COMMISSION DOES NOTHING ON FIRST OFFENDER PROPOSAL

In a half-hour meeting ending yesterday, the U.S. Sentencing Commission promulgated amendments which will become effective on November 1, 2018, unless Congress blocks their effectiveness. As expected, the Commission proposed tough new sentencing guidelines for synthetic drugs like fentanyl. But not as anticipated, the USSC mentioned nothing about its ballyhooed First Offender Proposal.

planethype180413Last year, the Commission proposed a “First Offender” amendment, one that would give additional Guidelines benefit to people with pure criminal records. The USSC proposed that the virgins of the criminal world – people who had no prior convictions – get bonus points for a prior record that’s even better than Crim I.

For prisoners, the proposal has been the most hyped change in the Guidelines since the 2014 drug table amendments, despite the fact that its retroactivity was in doubt. Yet at yesterday’s meeting, without a single mention, the Commission adjourned without acting on the proposal.

As we have reported, if President Trump is successful in get his latest two nominees past the Senate and onto the Commission, retroactivity will enter the dark ages. But judging from yesterday’s nonevent, it looks like things could not get a whole lot worse for the already-sentenced.

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Amendments to Sentencing Guidelines (Preliminary) (April 12, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root LISAStatHeader2small

Sentencing Commission May Adopt First Offender Proposal on Thursday – Update for April 9, 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. 

LISAStatHeader2small
 SENTENCING COMMISSION SET TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS

Some of our friends who publish their own newsletters have predicted 17 of the last two United States Sentencing Commission actions on the so-called first offender proposal. They should be glad that the long wait is just about over. The USSC will hold its April meeting on Thursday, April 12, at which time it is expected to adopt proposed amendments for November 2018, including quite possibly some form of first offender relief.

abscissa180319The USSC’s sentencing guidelines are based on a cartesian system with the abscissa being the offense level and the ordinate being the defendant’s criminal history. If you rob a bank, that offense is worth a base offense level of so many points. If you threatened an old lady in the process, that is worth a few more points, but if you confess after being caught, that takes a few points off.

Your criminal history is calculated based on the number, severity and age of prior criminal convictions. A prior drunk driving is not as bad as a felony burglary, and while a 12-year old misdemeanor possession of pot charge isn’t worth anything, a 12-year old felony trafficking in pot is. The result is a Total Offense Level and Criminal expressed in Arabic numbers (such as a Level 22) and a Criminal History Category expressed in Roman numerals (such as a “III”). On the sentencing table that is Chapter 5A of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant with a Total Offense Level of 22 and a Crim History Level III would have a suggested sentencing range of  51-63 months.

Oscar180410Now for the “First Offender” proposal: It is entirely possible to have prior convictions galore and yet be a Criminal History I (the best score you can achieve). The Guidelines define a Crim I as someone with zero or one criminal history point, which means you could have had a couple of heroin distribution felonies in the 1980s, a string of misdemeanor domestic violences between 1990 and 2006, and one minor misdemeanor 2014, and – because of the age of the offenses – be a Criminal History I. Such a defendant is far different from the 55-year old guy who has never even gotten a traffic ticket, but ends up with a tax fraud conviction. Both defendants get the best treatment from the Sentencing Table that’s possible, but one is a genuine virgin while the other has simply mastered the talent of not getting caught. In recognition, the USSC proposed  that the Phoebe Snows of the criminal world get bonus points for a prior record that’s purer than Crim I.

Two options for a “First Offender” guideline were floated by the USSC. One was that any defendant with zero criminal history points should be considered a First Offender. The second proposal, a stricter one, was more like an Academy Award for lifetime achievement, and would give bonus points to those with no criminal convictions any time in their past, no matter how old.

virgin180409As for nomenclature, the First Offender guideline would adjust a first offender’s Total Offense Level downward. The Sentencing Commission suggested that either all defendants who qualify as “first offenders” would receive a 1-level reduction from their offense level, or perhaps that  defendants who qualify as “first offenders” would receive a 2-level reduction if their Total Offense Level was below 16 and a 1-level reduction if it’s above. 

After the spate of comments for and against the various proposals (and a few against any First Offender guideline at all) presented to the USSC last month, we’ll see in a few days just how eager the Commission is the Trumpian “law-and-order” atmosphere that overhangs Washington to give any defendant, no matter how deserving, a break.

If it is adopted, the First Offender amendment will not be retroactive – that is, not apply to people already sentenced – unless the USSC holds an additional proceeding to declare it so. In other words, current federal inmates are urged not to fall for pitches from anyone (be it an outside service or a guy in the law library who wants some commissary) to prepare a filing to claim your sentence reduction. While it could happen, it will not be happening soon.

knuckles180409And, as we all know, the President has nominated some genuine knuckle-draggers to serve on the Commission. If they are confirmed by the Senate, you can likely kiss any chance for retroactivity goodbye.

U.S. Sentencing Commission, Public Meeting – April 12, 2018

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small

Four Foxes Nominated to Guard Henhouse – Update for March 7, 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.

LISAStatHeader2small
FOUR FOXES NOMINATED TO GUARD SENTENCING COMMISSION HENHOUSE

The U.S. Sentencing Commission, currently considering a “first offender” proposal that would reduce the Guidelines of people with no prior record, had better act quickly. Last Thursday, President Trump announced four nominees to the Commission, three federal judges and a guy named Bill Otis. All of them will require Senate approval.

henhouse180307Otis’ nomination marks one of Trump’s most powerful statements yet against sentencing reform. A man described as “a prominent pro-prosecution crusader,” Otis has a history as the worst kind of AUSA, a guy who oversaw criminal prosecutions without ever actually doing any of them himself. He is a vigorous advocate for lengthy prison sentences and mandatory minimum laws (especially for drug sentencing, and is a staunch supporter of the Attorney General’s re-emphasis on them. He dismisses reformers as “pro-criminal” advocates who want to be “nice to drug pushers” by letting “robe-wearing partisans” impose more lenient sentences. And he supports life without parole for juveniles. Slate.com quotes him as writing that to avoid longer sentences, criminals should “consider quitting the smack business and getting a normal job like everybody else.”

“Congress should abolish the Sentencing Commission,” Otis testified at a 2011 House Judiciary Committee hearing. “By far the most important purpose for which it was created no longer exists—to write binding rules for district courts to use in sentencing. It does have some secondary functions—for example, to study possible statutory improvements, as well as gather and publish statistics about sentencing practices—but when its core function has been demoted to making increasingly ignored non-rules, it’s time to turn the page.”

Otis’ appointment to the Commission “drew reactions of horror and condemnation from criminal justice advocates,” Reason.com reported. Those denouncing the choice ranged from the pro-inmate Families Against Mandatory Minimums and the conservative Cato Institute. Such criticism of Otis and Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia could make it harder for the full slate of four to win swift U.S. Senate confirmation. Before Trump’s announcement, criminal justice reform activists were quietly urging the White House not to nominate Hudson.

hudsonB170811Trump and Sessions appeared to have had a falling out last week, when the President called the AG’s handling of the FISA wiretap investigation “disgraceful.” Sessions then pushed back against the insult, saying he was presiding over DOJ’s investigation in a constitutional manner. But the next day, Trump nominated three Republicans and one Democrat to the USSC, and all three Republicans – Hudson, Otis, and Judge William Pryor – are Sessions allies. Of particular note is Hudson, known colloquially in Virginia as Henry “Hang ’em High” Hudson. Sessions recommended Hudson for the USSC in August 2017 and has now gotten his wish.

The primary concern for inmates is that provisions like “First Offender,” even if adopted before the newbies are confirmed on the Commission, will never become retroactive. Retroactivity is usually decided after a new Guidelines provision is adopted, but the new appointees are unlikely to support that.

Slate.com, Law and Order: Dinosaurs (Mar. 1, 2018)

Business Insider, Trump’s sentencing panel picks may face uphill Senate path (Mar. 2, 2018)

Daily Caller, Trump’s Sentencing Commission Nominees Show He May Not be That Angry at Jeff Sessions (Mar. 1, 2018)

Reason.com, Trump Nominates Man Who Called for Abolishing U.S. Sentencing Commission to U.S. Sentencing Commission (Mar. 1, 2018)

– Thomas L. Root

LISAStatHeader2small