Tag Archives: sentencing commission

“Their Verdict Didn’t Matter”: Taming the ‘Acquitted Conduct’ Sentencing Monster – Update for March 8, 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.

ACQUITTED CONDUCT ISSUE ARRIVES WITH A LOT OF BAGGAGE

The U.S. Sentencing Commission completed two days of hearings yesterday on what, if anything, it should do to rein in “acquitted conduct” sentencing, the Guidelines- and Supreme Court-sanctioned practice of relying on evidence that a defendant committed a crime even if a jury had found him or her not guilty of that offense.

acquitted240308Jessie Ailsworth knows what that feels like. During this week’s hearings, he told the Commission he felt relieved when he heard the jury return 28 “not guilty” verdicts in his 1996 trial for crack cocaine distribution. But Jessie said “fairness went out the window” when he got hammered with 30 years for the seven counts on which he was found guilty.

The judge based Jessie’s sentence on all of the counts in the indictment, including the 28 acquitted counts.

“I was very angry for a long time,” Jessie told the Commission. “I felt like the system failed me. I really believe that the jury did their best. They took their time, wrote notes, asked questions, and reached their verdicts. But, when I was sentenced, the court sent me to prison based on the jury’s acquittals. I felt like the system didn’t just fail me, it also failed my jury. We all knew what the jury was trying to do, and when I was sentenced, I wondered why we had even spent all those days with the jury, if at the end of it all, their verdict didn’t matter.”

Jessie was one of 15 witnesses testifying over the two days. Others included judges, probation officers and advocates. Judge Deborah Cook of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals drew a distinction between “the important distinction in the proof necessary for convicting versus sentencing… That is, so long as the defendant receives a sentence at or below the statutory maximum set by the jury’s verdict, the district court does not abridge [a] defendant’s right to jury by looking to other facts, including acquitted conduct, when sentencing within that statutory range.”

Proof140424Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman, writing in his Sentencing Policy and the Law blog yesterday, explained how the question is stickier than either Jessie or Judge Cook might think. Prof Berman wrote that “rights directed at a balanced and thorough process — in other words, rights that support accuracy concerns or that tend to put the prosecution and defense on a more even playing field — do apply at sentencing. Rights that offer the defendant special protections — such as those that automatically resolve errors in the defendant’s favor or primarily protect the defendant’s autonomy — do not apply at sentencing. Framed only a bit differently, one might see concerns for sentencing “accuracy” to be a kind of Crime Control concern, and one that would counsel against preventing judicial consideration of acquitted conduct. But the jury trial right is fundamental to our nation’s vision of Due Process and our commitment to “defendant special protections,” and that’s surely why many are troubled by any judicial sentencing process that functionally disregards a jury’s decision to acquit on certain charges.”

Prof Berman suggests (without endorsing this outcome) that if factual accuracy is paramount at sentencing, the judge will consider acquitted conduct in all its glory. This, of course, is a slippery slope. How about evidence that the judge suppressed and the jury thus never heard? How about proffers (attorneys telling the judge what their witnesses would have said if allowed to testify)?

If due process (protecting a defendant’s rights) is the correct model, then a jury’s acquittal on any particular count is ‘game, set, match’ for sentencing. This is at the expense of accuracy and the core legal principle, first enunciated by Marcus Tullius Cicero two millennia ago, to “let the punishment fit the crime.”

The “due process” model, too, is a slippery slope. After all, “acquitted conduct” sentencing is only a concern in the 2-3% of federal prosecutions that actually go to trial. We’re talking about elephants when the issue should be all animals that are not elephants. For the overwhelming 97% of cases in which the defendant pleads guilty, the Guidelines permit sentencing on “related conduct.” Related conduct can be found by the court only by a fairly squishy “preponderance of the evidence” standard, and the government may meet that standard with hearsay evidence and fuzzy math from witnesses the defendant has no right to confront. In drug and fraud prosecutions especially, where the amount of drugs or amount of loss drives the Guidelines sentencing range, a “due process” model should demand that standards for determining facts at sentencing provide the same “reasonable doubt” and 6th Amendment right of confrontation that a defendant enjoys during the conviction phase.

Prof Berman observed that as he watched the Commission’s hearing “explore[] many of the devilish details, it was clear how acquitted conduct’s intricacies may largely explain why past Commissions have avoided these issues as a policy matter and why the US Supreme Court avoided these issues as a constitutional matter since its 1997 Watts decision.”

can230407Speaking at a symposium at Ohio State last Monday, Judge Carlton Reeves, chairman of the Sentencing Commission, said that the Commission took up acquitted conduct “out of deference to the Supreme Court” after it denied certiorari in McClinton v. United States and said, “Well maybe the Sentencing Commission ought to look at it.”

Earlier, in a Sentencing Commission news release, Judge Reeves said, “When the Supreme Court tells us to address an issue, the commission listens. From continuing the use of acquitted conduct to restricting (or even eliminating) its use in sentencing, all options are on the table.

Sentencing Commission, Public Hearing on Acquitted Conduct (March 6-7)

Sentencing Policy and the Law, USSC hearings on acquitted conduct: the devilish details amid a fundamental criminal process debate (March 6)

Kansas Reflector, Kansas man says prison sentence based on acquitted conduct was ‘ultimate betrayal’ (March 6)

– Thomas L. Root

DOJ Speaks With Forked Tongue… Again – LISA Update for February 4, 2024

Leave a comment

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

COURTS STARTING TO REJECT DOJ’S ATTACK ON NEW COMPASSIONATE RELEASE GUIDELINE

You may remember the old Dept of Justice bait-and-switch a year ago. DOJ told the Supreme Court that it shouldn’t grant review of acquitted conduct petitions because the Sentencing Commission was going to address the issue. Then, less than a month later, DOJ filed comments telling the Sentencing Commission that it lacked the authority to address acquitted conduct at all.

The DOJ’s at it again. Before the Sentencing Commission adopted a new USSG § 1B1.13 – the compassionate release guideline that became effective last November – there was a circuit split on whether a long sentence that was mandatory before the First Step Act passed but could no longer be imposed after First Step passed could constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.

(This difference in sentence length depending on when the sentence was imposed is called “temporal disparity”).

Six circuits said temporal disparity could never be extraordinary and compelling. Five circuits said it could. The government opposed certiorari petitions in a number of cases that asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue. The government told SCOTUS that the issue should be addressed by the Sentencing Commission, not the Court.

Now the Sentencing Commission has addressed it, directing in § 1B1.13(b)(6) that temporal disparity can be extraordinary and compelling if the inmate has done 10 years, if there’s a great sentence disparity, and if the inmate has a good prison record.

thereyougo240205What is the DOJ’s response to that? It has filed oppositions all around the country, arguing that the Sentencing Commission’s (b)(6) guideline exceeded its statutory authority and is invalid. As Ronald Reagan used to say to Jimmy Carter, “There you go again…”

The government’s cookie-cutter oppositions are now being decided. A late November Southern District of Indiana decision in United States v. Jackson held that 7th Circuit precedent holds that the statutory definition of ‘extraordinary’ does not extend to temporal disparity, “which means there is a question about whether the Sentencing Commission exceeded its authority when it added this item to the list of potentially extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction…” But because the defendant didn’t meet the 10-year minimum sentence required for a compassionate release under (b)(6), the court did not rule on its “question.”

In United States v. Carter, an Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision from three weeks ago, the district court ruled that the 3rd Circuit’s 2021 United States v. Andrews decision, which held a change in the law could never be an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release “forecloses Carter’s argument that he is eligible… 1B1.13(b)(6) states that an ‘unusually long sentence’ may be deemed an extraordinary and compelling reason’ warranting compassionate release… That provision… is incompatible with Andrews…”

Two thoughtful decisions issued last week clash with Carter’s holding and Jackson’s implication.

In United States v. Capps, an Eastern District of Missouri court rejected the government’s argument that because First Step did not make changes in 18 USC § 924(c) and 21 USC § 841(b) retroactive, the Sentencing Commission cannot do so, either. “Congress is not shy about placing sentencing modification limits where it deems them appropriate,” the Capps court said. “Congress broadly empowered and directed the Commission to issue binding guidance as to what circumstances qualify for potential reduction. Nothing in the statute’s text prohibits the Commission from considering nonretroactive changes in the law as extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. The absence of any such limitation is telling.”

The best repudiation of the government’s attempt to strip § 1B1.13(b)(6) of legitimacy came last Thursday. In United States v. Padgett, a Northern District of Florida district court ruled that making temporal disparity an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for compassionate release was exactly the kind of decision Congress intended the Commission to make.

toofar240205“The government acknowledges that Congress directed the Commission to address the meaning of extraordinary and compelling,” the district court said. “But the government asserts the Commission went too far, because, the government says, a temporal disparity, no matter how great or how unusual, can never provide an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.”

The Court ruled:

The very fact that the circuits split on this issue suggests the meaning of ‘extraordinary and compelling’ is not as clear as the government now asserts. Instead, this is precisely the kind of issue Congress called on the Commission to resolve. Indeed, in United States v. Bryant… the 11th Circuit held binding the Sentencing Commission’s prior policy statement on this very issue, emphatically explaining that Congress left it to the Sentencing Commission to define ‘extraordinary and compelling,’ subject only to the requirement that rehabilitation alone is not enough. The Bryant court said relying on the Commission promotes uniformity, thus minimizes unwarranted sentence disparity, and that defining these terms is ‘not a task that the statute allocates to courts… A district court’s job is ‘simply’ to apply the Commission’s policy statements and, as required by the statute, consider the 3553(a) sentencing factors in deciding whether to reduce an eligible defendant’s sentence.

There is little doubt that the government or a defendant will fight this to the Supreme Court. For now, the proper application of the temporal disparity compassionate release guideline will be as random as it ever was before the new § 1B1.13.

United States v. Jackson, 2023 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 208272 (S.D. Ind, November 21, 2023)

United States v. Carter, 2024 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 6504 (E.D. Pa., January 12, 2024)

United States v. Capps, Case No 1:11cr108 (E.D. Mo., January 31, 2024)

United States v. Padgett, Case No 5:06cr13 (N.D. Fla., January 30, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Sentencing Commission Proposes Acquitted Conduct Sentencing Change – Update for December 18, 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.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG…

USSC170511Last Thursday the U.S. Sentencing Commission acted with uncharacteristic alacrity, adopting proposed amendments for the 2024 amendment cycle about a month earlier than has been typical over the past 30 years.

The Commission proposes seven changes in Guideline policy in a 755-page release, the most anticipated of which is the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing.

The Commission proposes adopting one of three acquitted conduct options:

Option 1 would amend § 1B1.3, the “relevant conduct” Guideline, to provide that acquitted conduct is not relevant conduct for determining the guideline range. It would define “acquitted conduct” as conduct constituting an element of a charge of which the defendant has been acquitted by the court, except for conduct establishing the instant offense that was “found by the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Option 2 would amend the § 1B1.3 Commentary to provide that a downward departure may be warranted if the use of acquitted conduct has a “disproportionate impact” on the guideline range.

Option 3 would amend USSG § 6A1.3 (which addresses the standard of proof required to resolve Guidelines disputes) to provide that while a “preponderance of the evidence” standard generally is sufficient, acquitted conduct should not be considered unless it is established by clear and convincing evidence.

acquitted230106The Supreme Court last June denied 13 petitions for writ of certiorari related to use of acquitted conduct in sentencing. Four Justices felt the Commission should first address the issue. US District Judge Carlton W. Reeves, chairman of the USSC, said, “When the Supreme Court tells us to address an issue, the Commission listens… [A]ll options are on the table.”

The USSC proposal also addresses counting juvenile convictions for criminal history. The Commission proposed changes that would limit the impact of those convictions on criminal history scoring and expand consideration of a defendant’s youth at sentencing.

One piece of bad news is the Commission’s proposal to undo the effects of the 2019 Supreme Court Kisor v. Willkie decision. A year ago, the 3rd Circuit relied on Kisor in United States v. Banks to hold that the loss enhancement under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1) includes only what was actually lost. The Circuit reasoned that the word “intended” appears only in the 2B1.1 commentary and not in the Guideline itself, and thus “the loss enhancement in the Guideline’s application notes impermissibly expands the word ‘loss’ to include both intended loss and actual loss.”

Sentencing for “intended loss” is the fraud equivalent of “ghost dope“:  Often, “intended loss” is what the government says it is, and that figure shoots the Guidelines sentencing range to the moon.

Banks sparked a debate on how much deference to give the Sentencing Commission’s interpretation of its own Guidelines. The 3rd said the USSC lacked authority to use its commentary – which is not subject to Congressional approval before adoption – to expand the meaning of “loss” to include what was intended but did not happen.

loss210312The USSC now intends to short-circuit the Kisor v. Willkie debate (and to kneecap the Banks decision) by moving “intended loss” from the commentary into the text of 2B1.1. Because that amendment will be subject to a possible (but improbable) veto by Congress veto, the Kisor v. Willkie problem with 2B1.1 will melt as fast as snowflakes on a hot stove.

The USSC drew its proposed amendment from policy priorities adopted last August. Not making the final cut were policy priorities on career offender (and not for the first time) and methamphetamine.

The proposed amendments will be open for public comment period until February 22, 2024. A public hearing will occur after that. Final proposed amendments will be sent to Congress by May 1 to become effective next November 1, 2024.

USSC, Proposed Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (Preliminary) (December 14, 2023)

USSC, US Sentencing Commission seeks comment on proposals addressing the impact of acquitted conduct, youthful convictions, and other issues (December 14, 2023)

USSC, Public Hearing (December 14, 2023)

USSC, Federal Register Notice of Final 2023-2024 Priorities (August 24, 2023)

United States v. Banks, 55 F.4th 246 (3d Cir. 2022)

Bloomberg Law, Wall Street Fraudsters Rush to Cut Prison Terms With New Ruling (November 1, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Government Seeks to Bushwhack Disparate-Sentence Compassionate Release Guideline – Update for December 11, 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.

TIGER TRIES TO EAT ITS YOUNG

Traditionally, the Department of Justice defends federal statutes and regulations from constitutional attack. In fact, DOJ’s role as watchdog over the sanctity of its statutes and rules is so established that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require a private litigant to serve the Attorney General in a lawsuit against another private party if the litigant is claiming that any federal statute is unconstitutional.

tigers231211I have seen cases in the past where the government conceded that the application of a statute was unconstitutional – but usually after the Supreme Court has found the statute itself to violate the Constitution. Good examples abound, such as United States v. Brown, a 2nd Circuit summary order noting that where “the underlying crime of violence was a racketeering conspiracy… [t]he Government concedes that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Davis… requires vacatur of those counts of conviction [under 18 USC 924(c)]”).

But I don’t recall a case where the government has mounted a defense based on the argument that the federal agency rule applicable to the private party’s claim was void as contrary to federal statute. Until now.

To channel Rodney Dangerfield, this is a case of a tiger eating its young.

The new USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6) – the Guideline that sets out binding Sentencing Commission policy on 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A) “compassionate release” sentencing reductions – holds that where a prisoner has

an unusually long sentence and has served at least 10 years of the term of imprisonment, a change in the law… may be considered in determining whether the defendant presents an extraordinary and compelling reason, but only where such change would produce a gross disparity between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed…

You may recall that when this provision was adopted by the Commission last April, it generated vigorous debate and passed on a whisker-thin 4-3 vote.

retro160110Now, in United States v. Brand, a compassionate release case in the Northern District of Florida, the government has opposed a prisoner’s request for relief from a sentence of stacked 18 USC § 924(c) convictions by arguing that USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6) is an unconstitutional expansion of Sentencing Commission authority because it effectively makes nonretroactive changes in the law retroactive. The thrust of the government’s defense is that Congress did not make changes in 18 USC § 924(c) retroactive when it passed the First Step Act five years ago, that this was a deliberate choice made by Congress, and that the Sentencing Commission’s decision to define the sentence disparity resulting from people sentenced before First Step have dramatically higher stacked 924(c) sentences than people sentenced after First Step as “extraordinary and compelling” is unlawful: “Although Congress has delegated broad authority to the Sentencing Commission, subsection (b)(6) is contrary to the text, structure, and purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 994(a), and is therefore invalid.”

I think the argument is strained. Besides trying essentially to engraft Administrative Procedure Act standards (see 5 USC § 706, for instance) onto a judicial agency that is not subject to the APA, I think that the biggest hole in the government’s argument is that – unlike other agency rules – under 28 USC § 994(p), Guideline amendments (and an explanation of why they are being proposed) must be submitted to Congress 180 days before effectiveness to give Congress a chance to modify or disapprove the amendments. Congress’s right to modify or disapprove makes it tough to argue, as the government does, that the Commission’s reading of the compassionate release statute “exceeds the gap left by Congress.” If Congress had thought the new § 1B1.13(b)(6) was overreaching, outside the Commission’s authority, or contrary to the non-retroactivity of First Step, it had six months to say so.

The government relies on Mayo Foundation for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, but in that case, the court notes that “the ultimate question is whether Congress would have intended, and expected, courts to treat [the regulation] as within, or outside, its delegation to the agency of ‘gap-filling’ authority.” Here, I think, the existence of the six-month review period and Congress’s election not to modify or veto during that period is more than ample evidence of Congress’s intent.

lincolnfool161125But the real danger in Brand is this: The court denied the prisoner appointment of counsel right about the time the government lodged its novel constitutional claim that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 requires a party contesting the constitutionality of a federal statute to serve the Attorney General of the United States with notice of the action. Under 28 USC § 2403(a), a court ruling on such a challenge is required to do the same. Upon receiving notice, the Attorney General has a right to intervene as a party in the case and present evidence. Both of these requirements suggest that the government has a compelling interest in defending the sanctity of its rules and statutes.

So what happens when the Attorney General himself contests the lawfulness of a federal regulation, especially where it is a quasi-statute as is a sentencing guideline? Expecting a pro se prisoner to competently defend the lawfulness of a federal rule against the government puts a lot of weight on the shoulders of the inmate. What is more, it is almost certain to result in steamrolling the government’s position into the final order, resulting in the making of a bad ruling out of an unbalanced contest.

Sentencing Commission guideline 1B1.13(b)(6) has the tacit approval of Congress. If any compassionate release defense calls for the appointment of counsel, defending the lawfulness of a properly adopted guideline does.

United States v. Brown, 797 Fed.Appx 52, 54 (2d Cir. 2019)

United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. —, 139 S.Ct. 2319, 204 L.Ed.2d 757 (2019)

Gvt Response to Motion for Compassionate Release (ECF 108), United States v. Brand, Case 8:11-cr-380 (N.D.Fl., filed November 17, 2023)

Mayo Foundation for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, 562 US 44 (2011)

– Thomas L. Root

Is DOJ Gunning for New Compassionate Release Guideline? Some Suspect So – Update for October 23, 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.

RUMORS: WILL DEPT OF JUSTICE GO AFTER NEW COMPASSIONATE RELEASE GUIDELINE?

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman wrote last week in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog that he has “heard talk that, notwithstanding the text of § 994(t), the Justice Department is planning to contest the new [compassionate release] guideline once it becomes effective on November 1.”

rumor231023Prof Berman does not cite his sources, but his credentials as among the premier federal sentencing law experts in the nation suggest that his report should be taken seriously. The Dept of Justice was adamantly opposed to the new USSG § 1B1.13(b)(6) – which directs that if a defendant has served at least 10 years of an unusually long sentence, a change in the law (other than a non-retroactive Guideline amendment) “may be considered in determining whether the defendant presents an extraordinary and compelling reason, but only where such change would produce a gross disparity between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed, and after full consideration of the defendant’s individualized circumstances.” In fact, subsection (b)(6) was the cause of the Sentencing Commission’s extended debate and 4-3 vote split on approving 1B1.13.

Any DOJ litigation attack on 1B1.13 makes little sense. Congress has decreed in 28 USC 994(t) that the Sentencing Commission “shall describe what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of specific examples.” What’s more, Congress has built a veto mechanism into the Guidelines, giving legislators 180 days to reject what the USSC does before it becomes effective. It would be tough to argue that § 994(t) and the fact that Congress let the new 1B1.13 go into effect didn’t mean that any DOJ effort to convince a court to invalidate the new Guideline is doomed to failure.

The rumor may be stoked by a USA Today article last week that warned that “new Sentencing Commission guidelines will give [prisoners] a chance for compassionate release. But DOJ threatens to stand in the way.” The authors wrote that

mercy161107[t]he Sentencing Commission’s commonsense expansion of compassionate release makes us hopeful that our federal criminal system can carve out a little space for redemption, mercy and a recognition that we don’t always get it right the first time around. Unfortunately, even with the promise of and need for the commission’s new guidance, the future of compassionate release is uncertain. The Department of Justice has objected to the commission’s recognition that legal changes resulting in an unjust sentence can qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason justifying relief.

The article cites the DOJ’s spirited opposition to what became 1B1.13(b)(6) – the “change in the law” provision” – of the compassionate release Guideline. But nothing in the DOJ’s opposition comments, which it was perfectly entitled to file, suggests that the government will try to get the amendment set aside judicially.

The USA Today article argued that

the commission’s ‘unusually long sentences’ provision is good policy. Far from a get-out-of-jail-free card, as some have suggested, it is instead a narrow recognition that a sentence imposed decades ago may, upon review today, be longer than necessary. The provision applies in limited instances where, among other things, the person has served at least 10 years in prison and there is a ‘gross disparity’ between their sentence and the one likely to be imposed today. Even then, an individual still must demonstrate that they will not pose a danger to the community and that their individualized circumstances weigh in favor of a sentence reduction….

Bottom line: I doubt that DOJ plans any omnibus attack on 1B1.13(b)(6). Rather, I suspect that the USA Today authors are extrapolating from the Department’s negative comments during the Guidelines amendment process.  Nevertheless, no one’s gone broke yet betting that the DOJ will not be both creative and vigorous in fighting to keep people locked up in order to honor a draconian but lawful sentence.

If Professor Berman seems a little alarmist to you, recall Sen. Barry Goldwater’s famous observation that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” For now, I stand with the Professor.

gleesonB160314In other Sentencing Commission news, President Joe Biden last week nominated current federal judge Claria Boom Horn (who sits in both the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky) and retired federal judge John Gleeson to full 6-year terms on the Commission. Both of them – who were filling one-year interim terms on the USSC – are intelligent and thoughtful commissioners. I see Judge Gleeson – author of what came to be known as the “Holloway motion” when he used his legal and persuasive authority to correct a grossly unjust sentence – to be a little better rounded on sentencing policy.

That being said, one only has to remember former Commissioner Judge Danny Reeves, Bill Otis and Judge Henry Hudson to realize that the weakest commissioner on the USSC now (and I do not mean to imply that the weakest commission is either Judge Horn or Judge Gleeson) stands far above the ones President Trump favored but was unsuccessful in placing on the Commission.

Sentencing Law and Policy, Urging the Justice Department to respect the US Sentencing Commission’s new guidelines for compassionate release (October 18, 2023)

USA Today, First Step Act advanced prison reform, but hundreds are still serving unjust sentences (October 18, 2023)

White House, President Biden Names Fortieth Round of Judicial Nominees and Announces Nominees for U.S. Attorney, U.S. Marshal, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission (October 18, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Supremes Are Back From the Beach, Guideline Amendments Lurch Toward Effective Date – Update for September 26, 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.

PREVIEW OF COMING EVENTS

events230926With Congress careening toward a federal government shutdown (always bad news for BOP inmates), a freshly indicted Sen Bob Menendez (D-NJ) being pressured to quit, and about 300 military appointments being held up by Sen Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), it’s looking increasingly doubtful that Congress will do anything in the next 25 work days to block the Sentencing Guideline amendments from becoming effective on Nov 1.

Former Sentencing Commission attorney Mark Allenbaugh, founder of the website Sentencing Stats, has rolled out a web tool for people to use in order to determine whether they qualify for the retroactive zero-point Criminal History guidelines reduction (new USSG § 4C1.1). It can be found at https://www.zeropointoffender.com.

vacationSCOTUS180924Meanwhile, the Supreme Court returns to work after a 3-month vacation for its annual “long conference.” At today’s long conference, the Justices will decide which of some 950 petitions for writ of certiorari – about 15% of all petitions filed during the year – should be granted review.

“The summer list is where petitions go to die,” Gregory G. Garre, a solicitor general in the George W. Bush administration, told the New York Times back in 2015. While the odds of getting the Supreme Court to grant review of a case are about one in a hundred, at the long conference, the rate is roughly half of that, about 0.6%.

Zero Point Offender

The Hill, All eyes on ethics as Supreme Court justices return to Washington (September 26, 2023)

The New York Times, Supreme Court’s End-of-Summer Conference: Where Appeals ‘Go to Die’ (August 31, 2015)

– Thomas L. Root

Sentencing Commission To Take Measure of BOP – Update for August 29, 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.

“HOW ARE WE DOING? PLEASE TAKE THE FOLLOWING SURVEY…

It’s unlikely that the Federal Bureau of Prisons will be asking prisoners that question anytime soon. But someone might.

howwedoing230829At last week’s meeting, the U.S. Sentencing Commission said that in the coming year, it plans to assess how effective the BOP is in meeting the purposes of sentencing listed in 18 USC § 3553(a)(2). Those purposes include the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment and adequate deterrence, to protect the public and to effectively provide the defendant with needed training, medical care, or other treatment.

The Commission also plans to continue review of how the guidelines treat acquitted conduct for sentencing purposes. The Supreme Court recently denied review in a baker’s-dozen cases asking it to declare the use of acquitted conduct at sentencing to be unconstitutional. Three Justices cited the ongoing USSC study of the issue as a reason to hold off.

Other Commission priorities in the coming year include studying the career offender guidelines, methamphetamine offenses, sentencing differences for cases disposed of through trial versus plea, and sentences involving youthful individuals.

badfood230829Speaking of prisoner satisfaction, inmates should not expect any help if they are unhappy with the chow. Two weeks ago, the 10th Circuit ruled that an inmate claim that the BOP was tampering with the food it served him – in violation of the 8th Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment – presented a new application of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The Circuit said that the existence of alternative remedies (the BOP’s administrative remedy route, no doubt) made a Bivens claim unavailable to the prisoner under last year’s Supreme Court decision in Egbert v. Boule.

Egbert drove a metaphorical legal stake into Bivens‘ heart, as the 10th’s decision in the prisoner food case makes clear. It’s easy enough to cluck one’s tongue over Prisoner Adams’ tainted food claim (like any prison food is edible), but a lot of serious Bivens claims died on Egbert’s hill.

US Sentencing Commission, Final Priorities for Amendment Cycle (August 24, 2023)

Adams v. Martinez, Case No 22-1425, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 21369 (10th Cir, August 16, 2023)

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 US 388 (1971)

Egbert v Boule, 142 S.Ct. 1793, 213 L.Ed.2d 54 (2022)

– Thomas L. Root

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

Leave a comment

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

SENTENCING COMMISSION CLIFFHANGER SENDS CRIMINAL HISTORY CHANGES RETROACTIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final vote for retroactivity was 4-3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Thomas L. Root

Vacation’s Over, Back to Work – LISA Update for July 31, 2023

Leave a comment

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

OCCASIONALLY (BUT RARELY) I’M RIGHT

I am back from a week in the wilds with three wild grandchildren, a great vacation marred only by the LISA site crashing for five days. Did I remember to publicly thank LISA’s website provider for its alacrity in fixing the problem?

No, I did not forget to My omission was quite deliberate.

Now back to work: I have been predicting for weeks that the US Sentencing Commission will probably make the new Sentencing Guidelines §§4A1.1(e) and 4C1.1 retroactive sometime in August.

Amended §4A1.1(e) abolishes “status points” from Guidelines criminal history, while §4C1.1 reduces the Guidelines offense level for some people with zero criminal history points.

iamright230731Last Thursday, the USSC announced a public meeting will be held on August 24, and that the meeting will include as an agenda item a “possible vote on retroactivity of Parts A and B of the 2023 Criminal History Amendment.”

For the uninitiated, “Parts A and B of the 2023 Criminal History Amendment” are the zero-point and status-point changes we’re talking about.

If the vote is favorable, then people will likely be able to apply for 18 USC § 3582(c)(2)/USSG § 1B1.10 retroactivity at the end of February 2024.

Of course, Congress could veto the proposed amendment. However, half of the 6-month review period for the 2023 amendments has already passed, and Congress is on vacation until the week after Labor Day. With an appropriations bill deadline at the end of September and reams of unfinished business, the chance both the House and the Senate will veto any part of the 2023 Amendments before the November 1 effective date is remote.

The same is probably true for the 6-month review period on retroactivity.

US Sentencing Commission, Public Meeting – August 24, 2023 (July 27, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Mr. Explainer Here: All About Guidelines Retroactivity – Update for July 20, 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.

MR. EXPLAINER TACKLES RETROACTIVE GUIDELINES

USSC160729The good news is that the U.S. Sentencing Commission is likely to approve a proposal that two Guidelines changes it adopted in April should be retroactive for people already sentenced.

The better news is that Congress seems too busy to try to gin up a veto of any of the provisions approved by the USSC and submitted to the legislators for review.

Today’s guest is Mr. Explainer, who is here to guide us through the fine print of getting retroactive application of the two changes:

• First, no one can file a motion for retroactive application of the two Guidelines changes until six months pass from the time the USSC sends the proposed retroactivity order to Congress. That means that all of the inmates doing a happy dance in anticipation of November 1, 2023, will have to wait at least until Punxatawny Phil sees his shadow.

• Second, the two changes have conditions attached:

(a) The zero-point change in the Guidelines (new USSG § 4C1.1) says that defendants are eligible for a 2-level reduction in their Total Offense Level (usually good for a two-sentencing range reduction) if they had zero criminal history points and meet all of the following conditions:

(1) had no adjustment under § 3A1.4 (Terrorism);

(2) did not use violence or credible threats of violence in connection with the offense;

(3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury;

(4) the offense is not a sex offense;

(5) the defendant did not personally cause substantial financial hardship;

(6)  no gun was involved in connection with the offense;

(7) the offense did not involve individual rights under § 2H1.1;

(8) had no adjustment under § 3A1.1 for a hate crime or vulnerable victim or  § 3A1.5 for a serious human rights offense; and

(9) had no adjustment under § 3B1.1 for role in the offense and was not engaged in a 21 USC § 848 continuing criminal enterprise.

(b) The change in § 4A1.1(e) – the so-called status point enhancement – says only that one point is added if the defendant already has 7 or more criminal history points and “committed any part of the instant offense (i.e., any relevant conduct) while under any criminal justice sentence, including probation, parole, supervised release, imprisonment, work release, or escape status.”

fineprint180308• The USSC staff has figured that about 11,500 BOP prisoners with status points would have a lower guideline range under a retroactive § 4A1.1(e). The current average sentence for that group is 120 months and would probably fall by an average of 14 months.

• About 7,300 eligible prisoners with zero criminal history points would be eligible for a lower guideline range if the zero-point amendment becomes retroactive. The current average sentence of 85 months could fall to an average of 70 months.

• The reduction – done under 18 USC § 3582(c)(2) – is a two-step process described in USSC § 1B1.10.

(a) First, the court determines whether the prisoner is eligible. For a zero-point reduction, the court would have to find that the prisoner (1) had no criminal history points; (2) had none of the other enhancements in his case or guns or sex charges, or threats of violence or leader/organizer enhancements or any of the other factors listed in § 4C1.1. Then, the court would have to find that granting the two-level reduction would result in a sentencing range with a bottom number lower than his or her current sentence.

If your guidelines were 97-121 months, but the court varied downward to 78 months for any reason other than cooperation, you would not be eligible because reducing your points by two levels would put you in a 78-97 month range, and you are already at the bottom of that range. Special rules apply if you got a § 5K1.1 reduction for cooperation, but people sentenced under their sentencing ranges for reasons other than cooperation may not be eligible.

(b) To benefit from the status point reduction, the decrease in criminal history points is more problematic. If you have 4, 5, or 6 criminal history points, you are in Criminal History Category III. If two of those points are status points, they would disappear. Going from 5 points to 3 or 4 points to 2 would drop you into Criminal History Category II. If your prior sentencing range had been 70-87 months, your new range would be 68-78 months, and you would be eligible.

But if you had 6 criminal history points, you would only drop to 4 points, and you would still be in Criminal History Category III. No reduction in criminal history, no decrease in sentencing range, and thus no eligibility.

• Once you’re found to be eligible, your judge has just about total discretion whether to give you all of the reduction you’re entitled to, some of it, or none of it. You cannot get more than the bottom of your amended sentencing range, and the court cannot consider any other issues in your sentence than the retroactive adjustment.

usscretro230406Convincing the court that you should get the full benefit of your reduction is best done with letters of support from the community, a good discipline record and a history of successful programming. Showing the court that you have been rehabilitated to the point that the reduction has been earned is a good idea.

There’s a good reason that the retroactivity – if it is adopted – will end up benefitting no more than 12% of the BOP population. It is not easy to show eligibility and even tougher to prove that the court should use its discretion to give you the credit.

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

USSC, Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts (May 3, 2023)

USSC § 1B1.10, Reduction in Term of Imprisonment as a Result of Amended Guideline Range (Policy Statement)

– Thomas L. Root