Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
 
Search

June 15, 2022: COMPASSIONATE RELEASE and BOP COVID-19 BLOG


Fast Facts (Full BOP stats can be found here) Currently positive-testing inmates: 166 (up from 161) Currently positive-testing staff: 265 (down from 276) Recovered inmates currently in the BOP: 50,753 (down from 50,781) Recovered staff: 12,893 (up from 12,868)


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

Marianna FCI: 29 (unchanged)

Bastrop FCI: 20 (unchanged)

Phoenix FCI: 13

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

Central Headquarters: 30 (unchanged)

Carswell FMC: 11 (unchanged)

La Tuna FCI: 11 System-wide testing results: Presently, BOP has 139,879 federal inmates in BOP-managed institutions and 13,641 in community-based facilities. Today's stats: Completed tests: 128,721 (up from 128,717) Positive tests: 55,369 (up from 55,365)


Total vaccine doses administered: 321,096 (unchanged)


Case Note: Sentencing reduction granted because original reason for lengthy sentence -- future dangerousness -- was not longer applicable...


In Anderson v. U.S. , 2022 WL 1912937 (E.D.N.Y. June 3, 2022) (Brown, J.), the court granted sentencing reduction, holding that, because sentencing court’s reasoning for lengthy sentence — dangerousness — was no longer applicable, and perhaps questionable, reduction was appropriate, explaining: “[D]efendant seeks sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A) due to a panoply of medical conditions, most of which arose after his sentencing, and the concomitant reduced chance of recidivism by defendant. This portion of the application raises a far more challenging question: does this case, in which the record reveals that defendant's sentence was based exclusively on defendant's potential dangerousness, and that danger has been abated by intervening, serious medical issues, present extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting a sentencing reduction? Finding that it does, and after considering the relevant § 3553(a) factors, the Court reduces the defendant's sentence from 327 to 262 months. … This matter, originally before the Honorable Sandra J. Feuerstein, was reassigned to the undersigned following Judge Feuerstein's passing. … Judge Feuerstein sentenced the defendant to 327 months. A review of the sentencing transcript makes it plain that the principal concern was the need for specific deterrence. … While Lavy presented more limited circumstances, there are some similarities: no one was injured by Anderson, no weapons were discharged, and he has already served a substantial portion of his sentence. On balance, Anderson does bring forward some evidence of extraordinary circumstances. The expressed rationale of the sentence, which was predicated primarily, if not exclusively on the question of specific deterrence is somewhat unusual. Anderson's combination of ailments – obesity, high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, sleep apnea and damaged Achilles tendons – as well as his age and the circumstances of this case, narrowly crosses the threshold of extraordinary and compelling reasons, warranting an examination of the applicable 3553(a) factors. As discussed above, the question of specific deterrence – with a particular focus on future dangerousness – represented the central basis for the sentence imposed. The issue of future criminal conduct involves prediction. As the Supreme Court has observed:

Indeed, prediction of future criminal conduct is an essential element in many of the decisions rendered throughout our criminal justice system. The decision whether to admit a defendant to bail, for instance, must often turn on a judge's prediction of the defendant's future conduct. And any sentencing authority must predict a convicted person's probable future conduct when it engages in the process of determining what punishment to impose. For those sentenced to prison, these same predictions must be made by parole authorities.

Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 275 (1976). Even when made by an experienced, careful trial judge on a full record, such determinations cannot possibly anticipate every possible intervening event. It is beyond peradventure that, at the time of his sentencing, Judge Feuerstein correctly found that defendant presented a substantial risk of recidivism. The advent of defendant's various health concerns, together with his advancing age, significantly diminish (though do not necessarily eliminate) the risks that he will present a continuing danger to the community. … On balance, considering all of the relevant factors, including defendant's age and physical limitations, I find that a sentence at the lower end of the advisory Guidelines range, to wit: 262 months, appears sufficient but not greater than necessary to serve the § 3553 factors.”


Death Watch (Note: The BOP press website announces BOP COVID-related deaths here.) The BOP has identified the death, on May 22, 2022, of William Russell Mills, 65, of FMC Fort Worth, raising the inmate death toll to 296. Eleven of the inmates died while on home confinement. Staff deaths remain at 7.

19 views0 comments