Number of Prisoners Released Under First Step Act (FSA) Reaches the Thousands
by Derek Gilna
According
to Justice Department statistics, the number of prisoners released under FSA is
accelerating. Over 3100 have been released as result of additional good time
credits, over 2400 received reductions for retroactive crack convictions, many of which have resulted in
immediate release. There has been a four-fold increase in medical compassionate
releases, and 2000 more released to home confinement. New rules regarding education credits, resulting
in end-of-sentence credits and quicker transfers into home confinement, and additional
education programming, should also help.
As your
comments have confirmed, these reductions are butting up against the DOJ prison
culture where confinement and punishment, rather than rehabilitation and
recovery, are the primary focus. However, since many FSA benefits require
continued "good conduct," it would be wise to confine your objections
to what you feel are misinterpretation or mis-application of FSA to the
administrative remedy process, as many institutions have not been fully briefed
on proper FSA and PATTERN options.
In the
political arena, all remaining Democratic Presidential candidates have now issued
their own justice-reform platform, all of which build on FSA. This is GOOD news, since there are no
political forces NOT pressing for further reform, other than the entrenched
(and threatened) bureaucracy in the DOJ. 71% of the US
In the
circuits, the court in Hueso v Barnhart, 18-6299, (6th Cir.1-9-20), the court denied 2241 habeas relief where
Hueso argued that a 2255e finding was unnecessary, and that he was free to file
a 2241, based upon the Wheeler decision in the 4th Circuit, setting this issue
up for possible SCOTUS review. Take note of the following language, however:
"We decide only that (he) cannot pursue (a 2241)..because his cited cases
do not render a 2255...'inadequate or ineffective, '" ONLY because he did not cite his cases during
the pendency of his direct appeal, where he "could have cited in the
ordinary course." Thus, the 2241 door remains open.
In US v
Dowthard, 18-2088, (7th Cir. 1-23-20 ),
the court denied Rehaif relief, based upon the fact that he did not
"assert that he would not have pleaded guilty if he properly understood
the elements" of his ACCA conviction, and he was forced to rely upon
"plain error" on appeal.
In Velazquez v. Fayette FCI, 937 F. ed 151 (3d
Cir. 2019), the court held that there was inadequate representation of counsel
where lawyer error had prevented him from entering a "guilty but
mentally-ill plea," depriving him of a fair trial, with a hearing on
mental issues being required. Have a good week, and let not your heart be
troubled.
Federal Legal Center, Inc., Derek A Gilna, JD, Director,
(Also in Indiana dgilna1948@yahoo.com
