Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
 
Search

December 23, 2021: COMPASSIONATE RELEASE and BOP COVID-19 BLOG



Quick Facts (Full BOP stats can be found here) Currently positive-testing inmates: 589 (up from 452) Currently positive-testing staff: 273 (up from 261) Recovered inmates: 41,671 (down from 41,736) Recovered staff: 8,691 (up from 8,686)


Institutions with the largest number of currently positive-testing inmates:

Allenwood USP: 143 (up from 62)

Alderson FPC: 111 (up from 105)

Chicago MCC: 50 (up from 38)

Institutions with the largest number of currently positive-testing staff:

Carswell FMC: 19 (up from 15)

La Tuna FCI: 9 (unchanged)

Terre Haute FCI: 8

System-wide testing results: Presently, BOP has 135,373 federal inmates in BOP-managed institutions and 15,124 in community-based facilities. Today's stats: Completed tests: 127,396 (down from 127,427) Positive tests: 41,860 (up from 41,699)


Total vaccine doses administered: 274,744 (down from 274,886)


Case Note: Court may deny compassionate release application based on § 3553(a) factors, without considering whether defendant's circumstances are extraordinary and compelling...


In U.S. v. Keitt, No. 21-13-CR, 2021 WL 6058144 (2d Cir. Dec. 22, 2021) (published) (per curiam), the Second Circuit clarifies a court does not commit error in denying compassionate release based only on consideration of the 3553(a) factors, without moving on to whether proffered circumstances are extraordinary and compelling explaining: "Defendant Jayvon Keitt moved to reduce his 60-month sentence to time served under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), commonly referred to as the compassionate release statute. In considering Keitt's motion, the district court recognized the health challenges he might face from the COVID-19 pandemic while incarcerated. Without expressing any view as to whether these circumstances might rise to the level of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that might otherwise make him eligible for a sentence reduction, the court denied Keitt's motion based on the factors laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court declined to reduce Keitt's sentence in light of the seriousness of his offense, the harm it had caused his community, and the need to prevent unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated criminal defendants—particularly because he had received the minimum prison term provided by statute. We recently held in United States v. Jones, 17 F.4th 371, 374 (2d Cir. 2021), that a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons is necessary, but not sufficient, to grant a defendant's motion for compassionate release. Consistent with Jones, and with the decisions of our sister Circuits, we today make clear that when a district court denies a defendant's motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A) in sole reliance on the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing factors, it need not also determine whether the defendant has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons that might (in other circumstances) justify a sentence reduction. Applying that principle here, we AFFIRM. … A court deciding a compassionate release motion can consider “the full slate of extraordinary and compelling reasons that an imprisoned person might bring before [it].” United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228, 237 (2d Cir. 2020). But there are three requirements that must be satisfied before a court can grant such relief. First, absent waiver or forfeiture by the government, an inmate must exhaust administrative remedies by requesting such relief from prison authorities. Specifically, an inmate may ask the sentencing court to consider reducing a sentence only “after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Saladino, 7 F.4th 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2021) (holding that the government may waive or forfeit the exhaustion requirement). Second, a court must “consider[ ] the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see Jones, 17 F.4th at 374–75. Section 3553(a), in turn, lists numerous factors a court must review when imposing a sentence. These include, as most relevant here, “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”; “the need for the sentence imposed ... to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense”; “the need for the sentence imposed ... to provide the defendant with ... correctional treatment in the most effective manner”; and “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Third, the inmate must demonstrate that his proffered circumstances are indeed “extraordinary and compelling” such that, in light of these § 3553(a) factors, a sentence reduction is justified under § 3582(c)(1)(A) and would not simply constitute second-guessing of the sentence previously imposed. … Finally, it is true that in deciding Keitt's motion for compassionate release, the court did not determine whether his proffered circumstances rose to the level of extraordinary and compelling reasons. Instead, it denied relief solely in light of the § 3553(a) factors. That was not an error. As we explained above, a court may reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A) only if three conditions are in place: administrative exhaustion (absent waiver or forfeiture by the government); satisfaction of the § 3553(a) factors; and extraordinary and compelling reasons. It follows that if a district court determines that one of those conditions is lacking, it need not address the remaining ones. See Jones, 17 F.4th at 374 (“[E]xtraordinary and compelling reasons are necessary—but not sufficient—for a defendant to obtain relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A).”). We therefore hold that when a district court denies a defendant's motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A) in sole reliance on the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing factors, it need not determine whether the defendant has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons that might (in other circumstances) justify a sentence reduction.4 The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Keitt's motion to reduce his sentence.”



Death Watch (Note: The BOP press website announces BOP COVID-related deaths here.) The BOP has identified no additional inmate fatalities. Total inmate fatalities remain at 273. Eleven of the inmates died while on home confinement. Staff deaths remain at 7.







21 views0 comments