BOP Introducing Computer Tablets By Year End – Update for September 22, 2022

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

BOP ROLLING OUT TABLET COMPUTERS BY END OF 2022

A reader last week asked about rumors he had heard about the Federal Bureau of Prisons rolling out Android-based tablets.

BOP Office of Public Affairs spokesman Donald Murphy told me that the BOP “is in the process of migrating to a next-generation media device, the Keefe SCORE 7c. This next-generation media device may be purchased by the incarcerated population through our commissary sales program. Currently, it is anticipated full migration will be complete by the end of the calendar year.”

score7220923The Keefe SCORE 7c is an Android-based tablet with security modifications to the OS for prison use. The Keefe Group says the tablet includes access to will have more than two dozen personal growth and reeentry tutorials, over 51,000 public-domain digital books, free preloaded game, over 7,000 instructional videos in 2,000 categories covering a broad range of common-core subjects and provide a foundation for high school equivalency testing, free FM radio and access to music purchase or subscription plans, and access to over 200 movies for rental.

Keefe says users will be able to communicate with family and friends using fee-based text, photo and videogram messaging.

keefegroup.com, SCORE 7c Tablet

– Thomas L. Root

Congress is Back, Criminal Justice Reform Is Not – Update for September 20, 2022

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

LEGISLATORS GENERATING HEAT BUT NOT LIGHT

Both Houses of Congress are back from summer vacation. Criminal justice reform measures are pending (and may be poised for passage). Except midterm elections are 49 days away, and no one up for re-election is anticipating any traction from being in favor of helping out prisoners.

Anyone who wants to know what the Senate thinks of convicted persons needs look no further than last week’s 47-50 rejection of former Federal Public Defender Arianna J. Freeman as a 3rd Circuit appellate judge. Freeman was criticized by Senate Judiciary Republicans last March, when the Judiciary Committee did not approve her nomination, because of her success in overturning a death row inmate’s sentence. Critics called her a “zealot” for fighting capital punishment.

Freeman said that her office represented the man “as was our duty… Ultimately, Mr. Williams actually prevailed both in the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the Pennsylvania courts because of unlawfulness that took place during the course of his conviction. My colleagues and I pursued those available arguments under the law and we did prevail.”

Winning cases matters to the Senate – unless you represent criminal defendants. To the Senate, her success was her failing.

dema160222Nothing is easier to demagogue than being tough on crime.

The two criminal justice reform measures most likely to pass are the EQUAL Act (S.79) and the MORE Act (HR 3617). Last week, the Washington Post expressed pessimism over whether the EQUAL Act – which would equalize sentences for crack and powder cocaine – could pass. “The measure has stalled over concerns that Republicans could push for divisive amendments,” the Post said. “As the Senate juggles a number of measures ahead of November’s midterm elections, advocates worry that the window for action is closing. Democrats should continue to push for the Equal Act — but also be open to compromise if necessary. A possible middle ground might involve a 2.5-to-1 ratio, achieved entirely by increasing the quantities of crack that trigger mandatory minimums. This ratio could be further reduced or brought to parity in the future, and a deal could be supplemented with funding for research on the addictiveness and deadliness of these substances, as Mr. Grassley has pushed for.”

marijuana-dc211104

Meanwhile, the cannabis industry is lobbying hard for marijuana reform “before midterm elections that could reshape the political landscape on Capitol Hill,” according to a Canadian newspaper:

In April, the House passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act (MORE Act), which would effectively remove cannabis from the U.S. list of controlled substances and provide sentence relief to people serving marijuana sentence.

The MORE Act’s prospects in the Senate are less certain. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the most powerful Democrat in the upper chamber, has already introduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act. The CAOA also includes criminal sentence reform, but contains provisions regulating the cannabis industry that are much different than MORE.

What may happen is that the SAFE Banking Act, a more incremental step that does not include sentence reform but one with more bipartisan support in Congress than either MORE or CAOA, may be substituted. “We know right now, if SAFE were to come up, it would be a 65 to 70 vote,” an industry spokesman says. “We know the votes are there for SAFE, so our focus is on getting SAFE over the finish line.”

Good news for the industry, but bad news for marijuana defendants.

The Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (S.601) has gone nowhere in the Senate since being passed out of the Judiciary Committee in June 2021. But supporters may get what they want from an unexpected quarter.

hammer160509In Shaw v. United States, the Supreme Court has been asked to hear a case where the district court used conduct of which the defendant was acquitted to increase his sentence (although still within the statutory maximum). The Supremes have not yet ruled on the petition for certiorari, but the petition has collected amicus briefs urging its grant from the conservative Cato Institute to the liberal Americans for Prosperity, as well as from Prof. Doug Berman and The National Association of Federal Defenders.

Last week, a Bloomberg Law opinion piece argued for the Court to hear it:

Taking up the issue of acquitted conduct sentencing this next term will give the court another opportunity to tackle a criminal justice issue that unites people from across the spectrum… At least three current justices have questioned or called for an end to this unjust practice… There is reason to hope other members of the court would also agree acquitted conduct sentencing is unconstitutional given their professional backgrounds and experience on the front lines working in the criminal justice system.”

Washington Times, Biden judicial nominee loses Senate confirmation vote (September 13, 2022)

Washington Post, The powder vs. crack cocaine disparity still exists, and it’s still unfair (September 15, 2022)

Chronicle-Journal, As midterms approach, Capitol Hill lawmakers push banking reforms for legal cannabis (September 15, 2022)

Shaw v. United States, Case No 22-118 (petition for cert pending)

Bloomberg, US Supreme Court Should Tackle Acquitted Conduct Sentencing (September 14, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Circuit Split Deepens on Using Sentence Law Changes in Compassionate Release Motions – Update for September 19, 2022

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

9TH CIRCUIT ALLOWS FIRST STEP CHANGE IN § 924(c) STACKING TO SUPPORT COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

In 2007, Howard Chen was busted with a distribution-sized amount of MDMA in his car. Later, the DEA found more MDMA, two guns and cash at his house.

mdma220919A jury convicted Howie of six drug-related counts and two 18 USC § 924(c) counts for possessing a gun during and in furtherance of a drug crime. He got 48 months for the drug counts, 60 more months for the first gun offense and 300 months for the second one: a total of 34 years for a fairly garden-variety non-violent drug case.

In late 2020, Howard filed a motion for sentence reduction, seeking compassionate release for – among other reasons – that the First Step Act changed 18 USC § 924(c) so that he would not have to get a minimum of 300 months for the second gun charge. Although the change was not retroactive, Howie contended that the unfairness of how the 2007 version of the statute mandated 300 months but the current statute did not was an extraordinary and compelling reason for granting him a sentence reduction.

The district court denied the compassionate release motion, holding that because Congress did not make the 18 USC § 924(c) change retroactive, it could not be an extraordinary and compelling reason for grant of compassionate release under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Last week, the 9th Circuit reversed, holding that a district court may consider the First Step Act’s non-retroactive changes to sentencing law – in combination with other factors particular to the individual – when finding extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction.

circuitsplit220919Bloomberg said, “The opinion deepens a circuit split on the bipartisan 2018 reform law that has generated much litigation since then-President Donald Trump signed it.”

The 3rd, 7th, and 8th Circuits have ruled that district courts may not consider non-retroactive sentence changes made by First Step, whether offered alone or in combination with other factors, in deciding compassionate release motions. Those circuits reasoned that Congress explicitly made the sentencing changes non-retroactive and that § 3582(c)(1)(A) “should not provide a loophole to get around explicit non-retroactivity.”

For instance, the 3rd Circuit ruled, “We will not construe Congress’s nonretroactivity directive as simultaneously creating an extraordinary and compelling reason for early release.” The 7th held that “the discretionary authority conferred by § 3582(c)(1)(A)… cannot be used to effect a sentencing reduction at odds with Congress’s express determination embodied in… the First Step Act that the amendment to § 924(c)’s sentencing structure appl[ies] only prospectively.” The 8th said, “The compassionate release statute is not a freewheeling opportunity for resentencing based on prospective changes in sentencing policy or philosophy.”

The 3rd and 7th Circuits still allow district courts hearing compassionate release motions to consider First Step’s changes to stacked § 924(c) sentencing when analyzing § 3553(a) sentencing factors.

dontthink220919The 1st, 4rth, and 10th Circuits, on the other hand, have all held that district courts may consider First Step’s non-retroactive changes to penalty provisions, in combination with other factors, when determining whether extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release exist in a particular case. The Circuits have held that the statutes directly addressing “extraordinary and compelling reasons” don’t prohibit district courts from considering non-retroactive changes in sentencing law; and (2) a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s “extraordinary and compelling reasons” is “entirely different from automatic eligibility for resentencing as a result of a retroactive change in sentencing law.”

The 6th Circuit swings both ways. In United States v. Jarvis, the Circuit held that the “district court, moreover, correctly concluded that it lacked the authority to reduce Jarvis’s sentence based on a nonretroactive change in the law.” But in United States v. Owens, the panel said that the disparity between a defendant’s actual sentence and the sentence that he would receive if the First Step Act applied can be considered, along with other factors, to be an extraordinary and compelling reason for a reduction.

In Howard’s case, the 9th said,

Congress has only placed two limitations directly on extraordinary and compelling reasons: the requirement that district courts are bound by the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement, which does not apply here, and the requirement that ‘rehabilitation alone’ is not extraordinary and compelling. Neither of these rules prohibits district courts from considering rehabilitation in combination with other factors. Indeed, Congress has never acted to wholly exclude the consideration of any one factor, but instead affords district courts the discretion to consider a combination of “any” factors particular to the case at hand… To hold that district courts cannot consider nonretroactive changes in sentencing law would be to create a categorical bar against a particular factor, which Congress itself has not done.

United States v. Chen, Case No 20-50333 (9th Cir., September 14, 2022)

Bloomberg, Compassionate Release Gets Another Look Under First Step Act (September 14, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Restitution – A Foretaste of Eternity? – Update for September 16, 2022

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

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER… RESTITUTION JUST SEEMS LIKE IT

The 3rd Circuit last week reminded defendants sentenced in the last 25 years (since 1996), that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act places a very relaxed limitation on how long the Feds can chase them for money.

restitution170508Michael Norwood successfully argued that his liability for bank robbery restitution arose before the MVRA was passed in 1996. In ruling in his favor, the Circuit noted that the MVRA provides that a defendant’s “liability to pay a fine shall terminate the later of 20 years from the entry of judgment or 20 years after the release from imprisonment of the person fined.” 18 U.S.C. 3613(b). The lien on a defendant’s assets persists as long as he or she is liable to pay.

In short, the 3rd reminded readers, “under the MVRA, a restitution lien never becomes unenforceable, and a defendant’s liability to pay expires not twenty years after entry of the defendant’s judgment, but twenty years after the defendant’s release from imprisonment.”

United States v. Norwood, Case No. 20-3478, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25181 (3rd Cir., September 8, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

You’ve Got Mail, Director – Update for September 15, 2022

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

‘WE’VE GOT SOME CONCERNS, DIRECTOR’

The Sentencing Project, which recently reported on the large number of people serving sentences of longer than 10 years (52% of BOP inmates have such sentences, about average for the nation’s prison systems), sponsored a letter last Tuesday to BOP Director Colette Peters.

dungeon180627The letter asked her “to bring the Bureau into compliance with federal law and to lead the Bureau toward a more humane future grounded in transparency and accountability.” It cited “inadequate medical care, overcrowding, staff shortages, unsanitary conditions, violence, and abuse” in facilities across the BOP system. It noted that when “COVID-19 first threatened federal prisons, the Bureau could have embraced compassionate release as a tool to reduce the prison population and protect the most vulnerable people in federal prisons. Instead, the Bureau chose to attempt to use solitary confinement and lockdowns to reduce the spread of COVID-19, a practice internationally condemned as torture. Today, COVID-19 restrictions still define life within federal prisons, including 78 level three facilities which remain under intense modifications with minimal access to rehabilitative programming.”

At the end of last week, the BOP reported 477 inmates and 716 staff sick with COVID, spread over 110 facilities.

The letter called on the BOP to “use its power to file motions for compassionate release in extraordinary or compelling circumstances.” As well, it asked the BOP to step up calculating and applying time credits, complaining that agency foot-dragging was “keeping people from their loved ones months after they should have qualified for release to community corrections.” Ironically, this demand came only two days before the BOP issued its memo (see preceding story).

prisoncorruption2310825Finally, the letter cited FCI Dublin, USP Atlanta and USP Thomson as emblematic of BOP “of corruption and abuse and inaction.” The letter said, “We urge you to set a new standard and lead the Bureau towards transparency and accountability. The men and women incarcerated in federal prisons deserve safety, health, compliance with federal law, and to be treated with dignity.”

Not mentioned was FCI Carswell. Last week, Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX) urged the House Committee on the Judiciary to hold a hearing in North Texas to investigate sexual assaults in federal prisons, in response to a Fort Worth Star-Telegram investigation into systemic sexual abuse and cover-ups at a federal prison in Fort Worth.

The paper reported that its request to interview Director Peters about Carswell had been denied because her schedule “is very full her first few months, but we can re-visit this request in the future.”

busy220915No doubt she’s quite busy, but with all due respect, the issues being complained about are serious and may be system-wide. Being unable to find a few hours to prepare and sit for an interview with a newspaper that is laser-focused on the issue (one which is attracting some Congressional concern) seems somewhat short-sighted, even if only from a public relations angle.

Sentencing Project, How Many People Are Spending Over a Decade in Prison? (September 8, 2022)

Sentencing Project, Formerly Incarcerated People and Advocacy Organizations Urge Reform of US Bureau of Prisons (September 6, 2022)

Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, Congressman calls for federal investigation into ‘horrors’ at Fort Worth women’s prison (September 7, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

BOP Delivers New Earned-Time Credit Restrictions – Update for September 14, 2022

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

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY

thegood220914One provision of The First Step Act, signed into law in December 2018, allowed eligible inmates to earn credits toward an earlier release from prison, more halfway house or home confinement. The credits, called “earned time credits” or ETCs, were to be granted to prisoners participating in certain needs-based educational programs and productive activities. For every 30 days of successful participation, the prisoners could earn up to 15 days off their sentence up to a maximum of 12 months (365 days). ETCs could also be used to entitle the inmates to more halfway house or home confinement on a 1-1 basis: 30 days of ETC credit would earn 30 days more of home confinement, for instance.

The challenge for the Bureau of Prisons has been to keep accurate track of the credits earned by inmates. It is a multi-step analysis: First, is the inmate eligible to participate in the earned-time credit program? Second, has the inmate’s needs been properly assessed? Third, has the inmate enrolled in programming that addresses that need? Fourth, how many credits has the inmate earned in any given month?

When the BOP adopted the ETC system in January 2022, the system it enacted was 180 degrees opposed to the Draconian proposal the agency had floated previously. The adoption seems to have caught the BOP flat-footed, because it simply threw up its hands (figuratively speaking) and declared that any inmate eligible for the credits as of January 15th was assumed to have participated in eligible programs for every day since December 21, 2018 (or when the inmate arrived in the system, whichever was later).

Sweet deal. As a result, thousands of inmates were released in the days following the January adoption date.

But every Christmastime ends, and so did the BOP’s ETC giveaway. Since January 15, the agency has struggled with how to quickly calculate inmate ETCs on a rolling basis. In April, the BOP revealed in a court case that it was developing a computer program – an “auto-calculation” system – to update each inmate’s ETC credits continuously. The BOP estimated Auto-Calc would be implemented by about August 1.

The BOP finally delivered its Earned Time Credit “Auto Calculation” system last Thursday. “On time and under budget” is not a mantra at the Bureau. Delivery took about 50% longer than the BOP predicted it would. And, as Walter Pavlo said in Forbes last Friday, it “landed with a thud.”

Why the thud? The Auto-Calc system was accompanied by a memo that announced several interpretative rules the BOP is imposing by fiat. You know, rules that interpret other rules. And unlike the adoption of last January’s formal rules, there was no rulemaking proceeding, no “notice and comment” period, and scant indication the changes were coming.

The First Step Act spelled out prisoner eligibility in detail, But that hasn’t stopped the BOP from adding its own bells and flourishes.

The good news in the memo (such as it is) is that

• the BOP’s official stance is that ETCs will be applied first to reduce sentence length, and second to more halfway house and home confinement. The agency had been doing that since last January, but it had never announced that as BOP policy. Given how arbitrary the BOP can be, the announced adoption of the reduction-first approach as policy is a good thing.

• any halfway house or home confinement awarded using ETCs will be granted “in addition to release needs-based recommendations made under the Second Chance Act.” In other words, if the Second Chance Act would have entitled a prisoner to placement in a halfway house for six months even without ETCs, and you have 120 days of ETC credit applied to halfway house, you would be placed for 10 months.

• the Auto-Calc system will update ETCs monthly.

• the BOP verified that ETCs may be applied toward early release in addition to the early release benefit for RDAP graduates. In other words, RDAP now double counts toward early release, up to 12 months off for successful completion of the program as well as an additional credit of up to 150 days ETC credits for finishing RDAP.

• In order to earn 15 days credit for every 30-day period instead of 10 days for every 30-day period, inmates need to (1) start out with a low- or minimum-risk PATTERN level; OR (2) have dropped to a low- or minimum-risk PATTERN level and maintained it for two consecutive assessment periods. This is good news, because a number of inmates who entered the system with low or minimum scores have been told in the past few months that they have to have two consecutive assessment periods under their belts before getting 15 days of ETC credits in a month.

thebad220914But there is bad news in the memo, too:

• The memo codifies what I first learned last month. The BOP will not credit ETCs toward early release for inmates who are 18 months from release. At 18 months, the BOP says, “the release date becomes fixed, and all additional ETCs are applied toward” halfway house or home confinement.

This is a slight improvement over what the BOP was saying a month ago. In a declaration the BOP filed in Marier v. Bergami, the BOP manager said the cutoff was 24 months. But it still means, practically speaking, no inmates with sentences of less than 42 months will have enough time to collect ETCs entitling them to 12 months off their sentence (the maximum allowed by law).

This also means that unless an inmate can complete the in-custody portion of RDAP with at least 18 months left, the RDAP ETCs will apply to more halfway house or home confinement, not more time off.

Pavlo complained in Forbes last week that “with this more restrictive condition, BOP is even going against the Department of Justice’s intent of FSA which was to ‘transfer eligible inmates who satisfy the criteria in § 3624(g) [awarding of FSA credits] to supervised release to the extent practicable, rather than prerelease custody [halfway house and home confinement]’… In Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, the cost of incarceration fee for a federal prisoner at a federal facility was $107.85 per day; in FY 2020, it was $120.59 per day. It costs less than half that to place a minimum security prisoner on home confinement and it costs nothing if the prisoner is not in custody at all. Thousands of prisoners will be affected by this unilateral decision by the BOP. For many prisoners, their date for returning to society has been prolonged by a memorandum that is both unfair and arbitrary.”

• The memo states that “inmates who refuse or fail to complete any portion of the needs assessment and/or refuse or decline any program recommended to address a specific identified need area, are considered “opted out” and will not earn ETCs.” This hardly seems to be bad news, except that it assumes that the failure to complete needs assessment or refusal or declining to take a program is intentional.

More than one inmate has already reported that he or she was marked “refused” for not taking a program that simply was not available at the time. One inmate only saved from being marked “refused” by proving that he had sent the staff member responsible for the program a request to be put on the “wait list.”

• Starting eight months ago, the memo says, “all components of the SPARC-13 needs assessment must be complete to be eligible to earn ETCs. Failing to do so is considered ‘opted out.’ In other words, if an inmate fails to complete a required survey to enroll in a recommended program which addresses a specified need, the inmate will not be eligible to earn FTCs.”

The SPARC-13 is the Standardized Prisoner Assessment for Reduction in Criminality, a battery of surveys mandated by the BOP’s Initial Review of the SPARC-13 Needs Assessment System, issued last March. Judging from inmate reports, few have been given the surveys to complete. Even if they are asked to do so now, it is not clear whether any programs completed between January 15 and September 8 will count if the SPARC-13 was not done prior to that time.

• the memo states that “while inmates continue to earn FTCs, inmates can only apply the FTCs if they have no detainers, unresolved pending charges, and/or unresolved immigration status issues.”

These restrictions do not appear in the First Step Act and make little sense. It is logical that the BOP would not send inmates to detainers to halfway house or home confinement. That is a long-standing limitation. But there is no security issue in letting inmates with detainers benefit from shortened sentences. If an inmate gets a year off, the BOP simply lets the detaining agency know to pick up the inmate on Sep 12, 2022, instead of Sep 12, 2023, for instance.

Pavlo quotes a retired BOP employee as saying of the memorandum, “BOP is creating their own language and leaving the discretion in the hands of case managers to interpret who is eligible and who is not. They have completely disrespected the intent and FSA law states.”

theugly220914Finally, the ugly. The memo notes that “as a reminder, the unit team will determine an inmate’s eligibility to earn FTCs based on the current conviction and prior criminal convictions.” This means that basic decisions applying the statute are decentralized among close to a thousand unit teams. Given some of the errors already made by unit teams unschooled in the FSA, the amount of administrative remedy and judicial review such decision-making decentralization will spawn is likely to be quite significant.

A final thought: The Administrative Procedure Act (5 USC § 552), with its “arbitrary and capricious” standard, governs just about all federal agencies. However, Congress specifically stated in 18 USC § 3625 that the APA does not “apply to the making of any determination, decision, or order under this subchapter.”

The catch here is that § 3625 is specific to 18 USC Chapter 229, Subchapter C. The portion of the FSA establishing ETCs is set out in the newly-created Subchapter D. Congress either decided not to exempt the BOP’s implementation of the ETC from the APA, or it just forgot to do so. Either way, the ETC program appears to be subject to APA challenges, something new for BOP management.

Forbes, Bureau of Prisons’ Interpretation of First Step Act Will Leave Thousands of Inmates Incarcerated (September 9, 2022)

BOP, Memo on Implementation of Auto-Calculation (September 8, 2022)

BOP, Initial Review of the SPARC-13 Needs Assessment System (Mar 2022)

Declaration, ECF 10-1, Marier v. Bergami, Case No 21C50236 (ND Ill, Aug 9, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Phooey on Lawyers… Hire NPR To Get a Quick Compassionate Release – Update for September 12, 2022

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 RELEASES

caresbear210104A lot of people wish they could get this kind of press. Hours after a story aired on NPR’s Morning Edition last week about CARES Act home confinee Eva Cardoza being sent back to prison for a positive marijuana test, a federal judge found “extraordinary circumstances” that called for her immediate release from FCI Danbury. “Petitioner’s family is currently experiencing a dire, urgent situation,” ruled US District Judge Sarala Nagala, citing five kids being supervised by her fiancé, who has heart disease and colon cancer.

NPR had reported that Eva was one of 230 CARES Act people released during the pandemic only to be sent back after small infractions. The BOP told NPR that 442 CARES Act people have been returned to prison. More than half allegedly violated rules about alcohol or drug use. The BOP says only 17 people out of 11,000 released were returned for committing new crimes. Ten committed drug crimes, while the rest of the charges included smuggling non-citizens, nonviolent domestic disturbance, theft, aggravated assault, and DUI.

Not everyone gets NPR-level attention. Judge Micaela Alvarez (SDTX) last month denied compassionate release to an inmate with a terminal cancer diagnosis, in part because he did not show that he “is not receiving proper medical care” and “does not claim that his cancer will go into remission if released from prison, or even that his prognosis will improve.”

medicalcare220912Last week, Kevin Ring, president of FAMM, wrote to the judge to invite her to participate in FAMM’s #VisitAPrison campaign, to visit a prison to learn more about the living and working conditions (including access to medical care) of incarcerated people and correctional officers). Ring suggested that the inmate’s family’s “devastat[ion] at the prospect of not being with him at the end of his life” was a genuine concern. Beyond that, he described Judge Alvarez’s implication that the inmate was receiving proper medical care from the BOP as “chilling, given all we know about the substandard medical care in federal prisons, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Inspector General of the Department of Justice made disturbing findings in a 2021 audit of the Butner Federal Medical Center, where Mr. Chapa is housed. Indeed, one of the most notoriously dangerous prisons for women, is the Federal Medical Center at Carswell, is located in your home state of Texas.”

It is not likely that Judge Alvarez will accept the invitation or change her position.

NPR, A sudden homecoming for one of the people sent back to prison with no warning (August 31, 2022)

Reason, 11,000 Federal Inmates Were Sent Home During the Pandemic. Only 17 Were Arrested for New Crimes (August 31, 2022)

Order, United States v. Chapa, Case No 7:18cr960 (S.D.Tex., August 25, 2022)

Letter from FAMM to Judge Alvarez, Aug 29, 2022

– Thomas L. Root

Sentence Reduction Decisions – Two Outta Three Ain’t Bad – Update for September 8, 2022

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

Three Circuits Hand Down Late August Sentence Reduction Decisions

endofsummer220908Traditionally, not much gets done in August, and that rule applies even more to the week before Labor Day. People are returning from vacation or grabbing some extra days to tack on the long weekend, while those stuck in the office are afflicted with end-of-summer ennui.

Last week, that rule didn’t apply to three courts of appeal, all of which handed down rulings on the limits of compassionate release under 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A) and First Step Act Section 404 sentence reductions. Two were good for prisoners; one was not.

First Circuit Punts: Al Trenkler was convicted of a car bombing 30 years ago. The jury found Al had harbored only an intent to destroy property, but the trial judge inferred from the evidence an intent to kill and imposed a life sentence. But the law required life sentences to be assigned by the jury. The error – which everyone acknowledges – has never been fixed because of procedural roadblocks too complex to be explained here.

Al filed for compassionate release 18 months ago, based on his health and COVID-19 pandemic as well as his claim that questions surrounded his guilt; the fundamental unfairness of his conviction; sentence disparity and the unlawfully-imposed life sentence.

While Al did not sufficiently persuade the district court that questions surrounding his guilt, fundamental unfairness, and co-defendant sentence disparity constituted “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for compassionate release, the court decided the sentencing error did. Noting that Al had no other avenue for relief from the sentencing error, the district court reduced his sentence from life to 41 years.

The government appealed. Last week, the 1st Circuit sent the case back to the district court.

While the appeal was pending, the 1st ruled in United States v. Ruvalcaba that while district courts may generally consider “any complex of circumstances” in deciding that a prisoner should be granted compassionate release, that doesn’t mean that “certain reasons, standing alone, may be insufficient as a matter of law when measured against the ‘extraordinary and compelling’ standard… After all, it is possible that the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts, and reasons that might not do the trick on their own may combine to constitute circumstances that warrant a finding that the reasons proposed are, in the aggregate, extraordinary and compelling.”

howdidhedothat220908In Al’s case, the Circuit said, “it is clear the district court found the sentencing error constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting a sentence reduction. But its analytical path is susceptible to multiple interpretations when it comes to how it navigated the list of reasons Trenkler offered. On one hand, we can appreciate the possibility that the district court discarded Trenkler’s other proposed reasons one by one but… deemed the circumstances surrounding the sentencing error alone to meet the “extraordinary and compelling” criteria. But we can also see how discarding all proposed reasons except one could represent a singular reason-by-reason analysis, not a review of the individual circumstances overall. In the end, our careful review of the district court’s thorough (but pre-Ruvalcaba) decision leaves us uncertain as to whether it took a holistic approach when reviewing Trenkler’s proposed reasons and ultimately concluding that the sentencing error constituted a sufficiently extraordinary and compelling reason to grant relief.”

The 1st decided that “given the importance of the issues and the gravitas of abuse-of-discretion review, we conclude that the prudent approach is to remand to afford the district court the opportunity to reassess the motion with the benefit of Ruvalcaba’s any-complex-of-circumstances guidance.”
3rd Circuit Reverses Sec 404 Resentencing: Clifton Shields was eligible for a Fair Sentencing Act sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act. He argued that his rehabilitation and the fact that he couldn’t be found to be a career offender if he were sentenced today (because courts now looked at some predicate offenses differently than they did when he was sentenced) meant his sentence should be reduced from 360 months to time served.

The district court cut his sentence to 262 months, but refused to consider “whether under current law Shields would be considered a career offender” because it believed that “[t]he First Step Act does not permit the court to consider other statutory or sentencing guideline amendments enacted since the date the defendant committed his or her offense.” The district court held that the reduced sentence it was imposing, at the bottom of Cliff’s amended Guidelines range, reflected its consideration of those factors as well as the documents Cliff had submitted as evidence of rehabilitation.

Last week, the 3rd Circuit reversed the district court, holding that district courts are authorized to take into account, at the time of resentencing, any changed circumstances, including post-sentencing developments. Noting that the Supreme Court’s Concepcion decision last June acknowledged “the broad discretion that judges have historically exercised when imposing and modifying sentences, and acknowledged that district courts deciding Sec 404(b) motions regularly consider evidence of… unrelated, nonretroactive Guidelines amendments when raised by the parties,” the Circuit said that while a district court is not required to accept arguments about intervening changes in the law, it should “start with the benchmark Guidelines range recalculated only to the extent it adjusts for the Fair Sentencing Act and should consider Shield’s arguments that he no longer qualifies as a career offender and his renewed objections to the firearm enhancement and the drug weight… used to calculate his Guidelines range.”

2nd Circuit Outlier: Victor Orena filed for compassionate release, arguing in part that he had new evidence that called into question the validity of his conviction. The district court denied the § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, refusing to consider the new evidence.

outlier220908In a June decision that the 2nd Circuit affirmed again last week, the appellate court upheld the denial. The Circuit ruled that when considering a motion for a § 3582(C)(1)(A)(i) sentence reduction, “a district court does not have discretion to consider new evidence proffered for the purpose of attacking the validity of the underlying conviction in its balancing of the 18 USC § 3553(a) factors. Facts and arguments that purport to undermine the validity of a federal conviction must be brought on direct appeal or pursuant to 28 USC § 2255 or 2241.”

The problem with this approach is that a district court must consider the sentencing factors of 18 USC § 3553(a), including whether the sentence reduction will still represent fair and just punishment for the offense. What the defendant ought to have been sentenced to (or what he or she would be sentenced to if sentenced today) seems like the logical starting point for determining whether the reduction being sought remains consistent with the sentencing factors.

When the Circuit is confronted with whether a district court must assume that a sentence that could not lawfully be imposed today is the starting point for measuring consistency with the sentencing factors, we might get a decision that is more like Trenkler and Shields.

United States v. Trenkler, No. 21-1441, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24290 (1st Cir. Aug. 29, 2022)

United States v. Shields, No. 19-2717, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 24719 (3d Cir. Sep. 1, 2022)

United States v. Amato, 37 F.4th 58 (2d Cir. 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

How Bad is Sex Abuse? That Depends on Who’s Doing It… – Update for September 6, 2022

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

‘SKY PILOT’ GROUNDED IN CALIFORNIA EVEN AS TEXAS ALLEGATIONS UNFOLD

In maybe the most reprehensible of the sex abuse charges coming out of the FCI Dublin scandal, former Bureau of Prisons chaplain James Highhouse was sentenced last week to 84 months in prison — more than double his laughably short 24-30 month Guidelines range – for sexually abusing a female inmate and lying to authorities.

skypilot220906The Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case said Highhouse engaged in predatory conduct with at least six women from 2014 to 2019. The government said he would tell women he abused at Dublin that everyone in the Bible had sex and that God wanted them to be together. An Army veteran, Highhouse pressured one inmate into sex on Veterans Day by telling her she needed to serve her country and on Thanksgiving by telling her she needed to show her gratitude for him, prosecutors said.

Highhouse warned his inmate victims not to report him, telling one of them “no one will believe you because you’re an inmate, and I’m a chaplain,” the AUSA said in a sentencing memorandum. “The staff members at FCI-Dublin solidified [the inmate’s] concerns about not being believed. One counselor was particularly vocal about inmates “snitching” on corrections officers, advising them to instead “tell Trump about it.” When [the inmate] inquired about the procedure for reporting sexual assault, a different corrections officer told her that she would be sent to the Segregated Housing Unit (SHU) if she did so. Although the purpose of doing so is for protection of the victims, the SHU is disciplinary housing, and as result, inmates lose privileges and are in essence –even if not in purpose – treated like they did something wrong.”

“Today’s sentencing sends a clear message to BOP employees that abusing their position of trust will result in serious consequences,” Dept of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz said last Wednesday.

Swetnoodle220906erious consequences? Really? Ohio State Law Professor Doug Berman observed in his Sentencing Law and Policy Blog yesterday that the Guidelines sentencing range Highhouse faced for raping female inmates (24-30 months) was risibly short, especially when compared to other Guidelines ranges for other federal offenses:

There are many disconcerting and notable aspects of this story, but I am still struck that a prison official/chaplain can sexually abuse a prisoner repeatedly and yet only face a guideline sentencing range of 24 to 30 months.  That range is, generally speaking, well below the guideline ranges typically facing lower-level drug offenders and lower-level fraudsters.

Meanwhile, a BOP spokesman said Director Collette Peters – who now has been on the job for a month –is “fully committed” to fixing Dublin’s problems and is working with new Warden Thahesha Jusino to make improvements.

DOJ and the BOP may soon get a chance to prove their commitment to rooting out abuse if a Texas congressman gets his way. Last Wednesday, Marc Veasey (D-TX) called for an investigation into FMC Carswell after the Ft Worth Star-Telegram reported allegations of systemic sexual abuse and cover-up at the women’s facility. “These claims must be investigated swiftly,” Veasey said in a tweet, “and as your member of Congress, I will do everything in my power to ensure there is justice for these victims and that institutional change will take place.”

sexualassault211014The week before, the Star-Telegram published the result of a months-long investigation into Carswell. A dozen women currently or previously incarcerated at the prison described sexual assaults and rapes by staff members, the paper reported, while a former staff member and union president said reports of misconduct are ignored or covered up.

Last Friday, the Star-Telegram decried the sexual assaults, noting that, “equally alarming, the facility showed a systemic history of covering misconduct up and creating an atmosphere of secrecy and retaliation, making it difficult for these women to report alleged abuse. All of this means that the problem is likely much larger than the reports of abuse indicate.”

Associated Press, Chaplain who sexually abused inmates gets 7 years in prison (August 31, 2022)

Dept of Justice, Federal Prison Chaplain Sentenced for Sexual Assault and Lying to Federal Agents (August 31, 2022)

US Attorney, Sentencing Memorandum (Case No 22-cr-000016, ND Cal, August 24, 2022)

Sentencing Law & Policy, Noticing surprisingly low federal guideline range for sexual abuse of prisoners (September 5, 2022)

Dublin Independent, New BOP Director Collette Peters Vows To Improve Conditions at Federal Correctional Institute Dublin (August 31, 2022)

Star-Telegram, Congressman ‘deeply disturbed’ by Star-Telegram report on Fort Worth prison rapes (August 31, 2022)

Star-Telegram, Report on Fort Worth’s women’s federal prison is devastating. Reform must happen now (September 2, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root

Government Can’t Walk Away From Plea Deal, 4th Says – Update for September 2, 2022

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

‘WE DIDN’T AGREE THAT YOU COULD WIN’

The government prefers one-sided plea agreements, but – as a decision last month reminded us – sometimes the U.S. Attorney overreaches.

headsiwin220902(So why am I getting around to reporting this now, a month after the case was handed down? Vacation, county fair, August being August…)

Shelby Petties cut a deal in which the government agreed to drop two counts if he pled to having committed a crime of violence – kidnapping – while having failed to register as a sex offender. Shelby reserved the right to appeal on the ground that while he did the kidnapping, it is not categorically a crime of violence (COV).

Shelby appealed and won a ruling that kidnapping is not a COV. But when the case went back to the district court, the judge allowed the government to refile the dismissed charges against Shelby. The government’s view was that Shelby had agreed to plead guilty in order to appeal an issue that – if he won – the government could circumvent by undoing the agreement.

Shelby argued that the government’s view reduced the benefits he got from the plea agreement to zero. The 4th Circuit agreed.

“We give plea agreements greater scrutiny than we apply to ordinary commercial contracts,” the Circuit ruled, “because of the context: a defendant’s waiver of his constitutional right to trial, induced by the government’s commitments in the plea agreement.”

plea161116Here, Shelby gave up his right to go to trial on Count Two in exchange for the government’s promise to dismiss Counts One and Three and to “not further prosecute him for conduct constituting the basis” for the indictment. “The government entered into this agreement with full knowledge that Petties might appeal — and appeal successfully — his conviction on Count Two,” the Circuit held. “The possibility of a successful appeal was a contingency expressly contemplated by the parties and their agreement…”

United States v. Petties, Case No 21-4332, 2022 U.S.App.LEXIS 21158 (4th Cir., Aug 1, 2022)

– Thomas L. Root