Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
 
Search

June 2, 2022: COMPASSIONATE RELEASE and BOP COVID-19 BLOG


Fast Facts (Full BOP stats can be found here) Currently positive-testing inmates: 156 (down from 160) Currently positive-testing staff: 293 (up from 252) Recovered inmates currently in the BOP: 51,127 (down from 51,202) Recovered staff: 12,744 (up from 12,736)


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

Honolulu FDC: 33 (up from 29)

Bastrop FCI: 30 (unchanged)

Tallahassee FCI: 6

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

Central Headquarters: 28 (up from 25)

Guaynabo MDC: 19 (unchanged)

Victorville Medium I: 13 (unchanged)

System-wide testing results: Presently, BOP has 139,506 federal inmates in BOP-managed institutions and 13,513 in community-based facilities. Today's stats: Completed tests: 128,721 unchanged) Positive tests: 55,369 (unchanged)


Total vaccine doses administered: 319,583 (up from 319,323)


Case Note: Eleventh Circuit declines to reconsider whether a district court is bound by the “extraordinary and compelling” reasons listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 when considering a compassionate release application.


In U.S. v. THOMAS A. GUERRIERO, Defendant-Appellant., No. 22-10391, 2022 WL 1788462 (11th Cir. June 2, 2022), the Eleventh Circuit declined to reconsider its prior holding that a district court is bound by the “extraordinary and compelling” reasons listed in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 when considering a compassionate release application, notwithstanding his advancing an argument previously not considered, explaining: "[U]nder § 3582(c)(1)(A), the district court may reduce a movant's imprisonment term if: (1) there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for doing so, (2) the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) favor doing so, and (3) doing so is consistent with the policy statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237 (11th Cir. 2021) (quotation omitted). If the district court finds against the movant on any one of these requirements, it cannot grant relief, and need not analyze the other requirements. United States v. Giron, 15 F.4th 1343, 1347–48 (11th Cir. 2021). The Sentencing Commission defines “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for purposes of § 3582(c)(1)(A) in Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Pursuant to this definition, there are four circumstances under which “extraordinary and compelling reasons exist”: (A) the defendant suffers from (i) “a terminal illness,” or (ii) a permanent health condition “that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility from which he or she is not expected to recover”; (B) the defendant is “at least 65 years old,” “is experiencing a serious [age-related] deterioration in physical or mental health,” and “has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less”; (C) the defendant's assistance is needed in caring for the defendant's minor child, spouse, or registered partner due to (i) “[t]he death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant's minor child or minor children” or (ii) “[t]he incapacitation of the defendant's spouse or registered partner”; and (D) there exist “other” extraordinary and compelling reasons “[a]s determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. (n.1 (A)–(D)). In Bryant, we held that “district courts are bound by the Commission's definition of ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ found in [§] 1B1.13.” 996 F.3d at 1262. Furthermore, we held that although the catchall “other” extraordinary and compelling reasons provision set forth in Application Note 1(D) gives discretion to the Director of the BOP to identify other qualifying reasons, it “does not grant discretion to courts to develop ‘other reasons’ that might justify a reduction in a defendant's sentence.” Id. at 1248, 1263–1265. In so holding, we specifically declined to address the contention that “a sub-delegation of the Commission's power to define extraordinary and compelling reasons to the BOP may be a problem as a matter of administrative law” because “no party ha[d] plainly and prominently raised the sub-delegation issue.” Id. at 1264 n.6 (quotation omitted). Under our prior-panel-precedent rule, a prior panel's holding is binding unless it has been overruled or abrogated by the Supreme Court or by this Court sitting en banc. See United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317–18 (11th Cir. 1998). Thus, we are bound by Bryant, and Bryant forecloses Guerriero's appeal. To be sure, the Bryant panel did not have the benefit of the particular sub-delegation argument that Guerriero raises here, but that makes no difference under the prior-panel-precedent rule. “We have held that a prior panel precedent cannot be circumvented or ignored on the basis of arguments not made to or considered by the prior panel. ... In short, we have categorically rejected an overlooked reason or argument exception to the prior-panel-precedent rule.” In re Lambrix, 776 F.3d 789, 794 (11th Cir. 2015) (quotations and internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Gillis, 938 F.3d 1181, 1198 (11th Cir. 2019) (“The prior panel precedent rule applies regardless of whether the later panel believes the prior panel's opinion to be correct, and there is no exception to the rule where the prior panel failed to consider arguments raised before a later panel.” (emphasis added)). We have also noted that a prior decision's holding is the law of this Circuit “regardless of what might have happened had other arguments been made to the panel that decided the issue first.” Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., 204 F.3d 1069, 1076 (11th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Moore, 22 F.4th 1258, 1268–69 (11th Cir. 2022) (collecting cases). Accordingly, because the government's position is clearly correct as a matter of law, we GRANT the government's motion for summary affirmance and DENY as moot its motion to stay the briefing schedule."


Death Watch (Note: The BOP press website announces BOP COVID-related deaths here.) The BOP has identified no additional COVID-related inmate fatalities, leaving the total at 295. Eleven of the inmates died while on home confinement. Staff deaths remain at 7

14 views0 comments