The 2016 Guidelines Manual Amendments

Today, the 2016 amendments to the United States Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines Manual go live. The topics of this year’s adjustments are:

  1. Compassionate Release from Prison;
  2. Animal Fighting;
  3. Child Pornography Circuit Conflicts;
  4. Immigration; and,
  5. Conditions of Probation and Supervised Release.

Obviously, here we’ll be focusing on the Conditions of Probation and Supervised release, with some later posts dealing with the changes in sentence structures for Animal Fighting, Immigration cases, and possibly Porn. To see the full press release on the amendments that go live today, click here.

Conditions of Federal Probation/Supervised Release

The section of the amendments list regarding the standard, mandatory, and special conditions of supervised release gets started this way:

Reason for Amendment:
This amendment is a result of the Commission’s multi-year review of sentencing practices relating to federal probation and supervised release. The amendment makes several changes to the guidelines and policy statements related to conditions of probation, §5B1.3 (Conditions of Probation), and supervised release, §5D1.3 (Conditions of Supervised Release).

When imposing a sentence of probation or a sentence of imprisonment that includes a period of supervised release, the court is required to impose certain conditions of supervision listed by statute. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3563(a) and 3583(d). Congress has also empowered courts to impose additional conditions of probation and supervised release that are reasonably related to statutory sentencing factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), so long as those conditions “involve only such deprivations of liberty or property as are reasonably necessary for the purposes indicated in 3553(a)(2).” 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Additional conditions of supervised release must also be consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the Commission. See 18 U.S.C. §3583(d)(3).

The Commission is directed by its organic statute to promulgate policy statements on the appropriate use of the conditions of probation and supervised release, see 28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(2)(B), and has implemented this directive in §§5B1.3 and 5D1.3. The provisions follow a parallel structure, first setting forth those conditions of supervision that are required by statute in their respective subsections (a) and (b), and then providing guidance on discretionary conditions, which are categorized as “standard” conditions, “special” conditions, and “additional” special conditions, in subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively.

There is a deeper discussion of cases which have challenged certain restrictions that are placed on federal defendants on supervised release, which is very interesting, but too long to post here.

In essence, here are the changes that this amendment made.

  1. Court Established Payment Schedules: If the Court imposes a mandatory payment schedule for a Special Assessment, Fine, or Restitution Judgment, then that schedule is law. All this amendment really did is change the placement of Court-imposed payment schedules from the “mandatory” section to the “standard” conditions section.
  2. Sex Offenders: Ambiguity was removed from the mandatory condition of a convicted federal sex offender’s requirement to register as a sex offender in their specific state.
  3. Reporting to the Probation Officer: This, too, is simply there to relieve some ambiguity. If a defendant is released to be supervised outside  the jurisdiction of the convicting court, then they are to report to the probation officer of the local Court, then to whomever they’re directed to report to after that.
  4. Leaving the Jurisdiction: This is a good one. Standard Condition #1 is normally worded like this: “the defendant shall not leave the judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer;” Simple, right? Sometimes, not so much. In States like California, the borders of the districts are weird. In New York, taking the subway from Manhattan to The Bronx or Queens means leaving the Southern District and traveling to the Eastern District. Fall asleep on a train? VIOLATION!
    Anyway, this amendment adds the word “knowingly” to the condition to absolve the subway sleepers and the California hikers from violating a condition of their probation if they didn’t INTEND to violate it. Problem solved.
  5. Answering Truthfully: This one has actually come up more than once with clients. Standard Condition #3 on most Judgment Orders states, “the defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer;” But what if the probation officer asks a question that an honest answer could be incriminating? Does the 5th Amendment right to remain silent protect a defendant? Yes, yes it does. It always has. However, many probation officers don’t know this. A defendant on federal probation CAN refuse to answer a question on 5th Amendment protection grounds without violating their probation, and now the guidelines acknowledge this and specify it. It also prevents a probation officer from claiming a defendant “didn’t follow directions” because of an invocation of the 5th Amendment protection against self incrimination.
  6. Residence and Employment: This section changes two things. First, for full-time employment, the Commission added that full-time employment means at least 30-hours a week. This is still able to be waived for education, disability, and other reasons at the discretion of the probation officer.Second, a change of employment or residence used to require a defendant to give 10-days notice to their probation officer prior to the change. But what happens in the event a supervised defendant gets fired? Laid off? Their house burns down??? There is now added language to require the notification of 10 days, or within 72 hours of becoming aware of the change.
  7. Visits by Probation Officer: Not much change here. The commission re-asserts that a probation officer may need to visit probationers at work or at home, sometimes without notification to ensure compliance. “The revision provides plain language notice to defendants and guidance to probation officers.”
  8. Association with Criminals: This is a big one, and is a big step backward. The condition that defendants refrain from “association” with persons who they know to be engaged in criminal activity or have been convicted of a felony. That word “association” gives some leeway. Conduct at work will often put a defendant into contact with co-workers who are known to be former felons. This amendment seems to comport with, but restrict the Soltero case below.“[C]onsistent with the fundamental presumption that “prohibited criminal acts require an element of mens rea,” Vega, 545 F.3d at 750, non-association conditions prohibit only knowing contact with persons that the supervisee knows to be felons. See id.; United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d at 867 n. 9. We further limited the meaning of nonassociation conditions by emphasizing that “ ‘incidental contacts’ ․ do not constitute ‘association’․” Soltero, 510 F.3d at 866-67 (quoting Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U.S. 4, 4-5 (1971) (per curiam)” U.S. v. King 09-50665 (9th Circuit 2010).
    Now the association clause changes “association” with “communicating or interacting”, but also adds the word “knowingly” into the condition to make it have a specific requirement that a defendant intended to communicate with the criminal or former felon. That way, if the pizza delivery guy is also a drug dealer, but he just delivered a pizza once to a defendant, that exchange wouldn’t violate the Association with Criminals Clause. However, when it comes to professional relationships, the coverage of “association” would seem to be gone.
  9. Arrested or Questioned by a Law Enforcement Officer: This amendment only changes which section the provision goes under and makes no changes to it.
  10. Firearms and Dangerous Weapons: This amendment, or the part that matters, defines what a “dangerous weapon” is. Some clients have complained that their probation officer has ordered them to get rid of a compound hunting bow or a cross-bow because it was considered a dangerous weapon. This amendment defines a dangerous weapon as “anything that was designed, or was modified for, the specific purpose of causing bodily injury or death to another person such as nunchakus (sic) or tasers.” Rest easy. Those compound bows and cross bows don’t seem to fall under this category, as they were designed for animal hunting, not people hunting.
  11. Acting as an Informant: Nothing new here, just a change in language to improve clarity.
  12. Duty to Notify of Risks Posed by the Defendant: This third-party risk notification requirement is usually a hurdle for most defendants in their quest for employment. Many probation officers mandate that defendants tell their employer about their criminal history. This can, and usually does, limit a defendant’s ability to obtain employment. This can spill out in other areas like e-commerce for self-employed defendants and is really sticky. The amendment gives the probation officer more authority when making a determination about this notification requirement, which sucks. This tends to manifest itself in ways that are very detrimental to a supervised defendant.
  13. Supporting Dependents: The change to this condition is minimal, but fixes some vagueness. Basically this will only be applied to the judgement orders of defendants who have dependents that need support. Right now, it’s applied to everybody and is enforced if it is needed to be.
  14. Alcohol; Controlled Substances; Frequenting Places Where Controlled Substances are Sold: Here’s some good news. These conditions have been deleted so that the “excessive use of alcohol” prohibition is now gone and will be replaced with a full prohibition if it is deemed need in specific cases. Controlled substances are already covered in mandatory conditions, and frequenting places where drugs are sold is covered in the “non-association” clause discussed above.
  15. Material Change in Economic Circumstances: In basic terms, this condition requires defendants to notify their probation officer if they get fired/laid-off from their job, or if they come into a lot of money like an inheritance. Since this only matters if the defendant has a fine or restitution outstanding, the Commission has clarified that this condition is not necessary for cases where no fines or restitution judgments exist.

That wraps up this year’s U.S.S.C. Guidelines Manual amendments for supervised release and probation terms. Some important changes, but nothing earth-shattering this year.

Convicted ex-Sen. Vince Fumo wants to end federal supervised release

The title of this post comes from this PennLive article about Vince Fumo. The original article from Philly.com details the corruption charges that landed Fumo in trouble, his prison sentence, and ensuing federal supervised release.

He is now seeking early release from his federal supervised release by motioning the court through his attorney. He is not a client, but represents, in a small way, what we try to accomplish every day here at PCR Consultants.

Here is how the Philly.com article gets started:

CONVICTED FORMER state Sen. Vince Fumo is seeking an early end to his three-year term of supervised release under the watchful eyes of the U.S. Probation Office.

In a motion filed yesterday, Fumo’s lawyer, Dennis Cogan, asked U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter to terminate Fumo’s three-year supervised release after more than 13 months.

“His punishments have been considerable and he has suffered much,” Cogan wrote. “He is now almost 72 years of age. His health is not good and his financial losses have been considerable.”

Fumo was convicted by a federal jury in March 2009 of 137 corruption counts.

Buckwalter had originally sentenced him to 55 months in prison and restitution of $2.3 million to the state Senate, Citizens Alliance and the Independence Seaport Museum. The feds appealed.

Fumo was ultimately sentenced to a prison term of 61 months, three years of supervised release and nearly $4 million in fines, restitution and special assessments, which he has paid in full, Cogan wrote.

Fumo served about four years in prison before being released to home confinement in August 2013 at his Spring Garden mansion on Green Street near 22nd. He received nearly eight months of credit for good behavior.

 

How to File for Early Termination of Federal Probation

Federal Probation - Approval StampWe’ve made many posts on our blog about the factors that help or hurt when asking the courts to cut terms of federal probation short. This post specifically addresses how its done, and the most common questions we hear about the process.

Filing A Request for Early Termination of Federal Probation

When filing a motion in court, all parties involved in the case must get a copy of the document. In this case, the document is a motion asking the court to cut a term of probation or supervised release short. Criminal cases have only three parties:

  1. The Court;
  2. The Defendant; and,
  3. The Prosecutor’s office.

So, when a defendant is ready to file, two other parties need copies: the Court and the prosecutor. To file with the court, just address the envelope to the Clerk of the Court and try to find the Clerk’s room number online to get it there easier. For the prosecutor, a specific addressee is good, but sending your motion addressed only the Office of the United States Attorney will normally do the trick. (Locate your United States Attorney’s Office)

Side note: While its not required to submit a copy of the motion to the federal probation office, its a good idea to do so as a courtesy.

Mouse-over here for a pro tip!

 

Filing Fee

Here’s some good news for you. An open criminal case requires no fee to file motions. The government opened the case file, so any documents that come after the initial complaint don’t cost anything.

Envelopes and stamps, however, are another story. These are not provided free of charge by the court. Sorry.

Mouse-over for pro tip #2! 

Certificate of Service

When filing documents in a court case for small claims, county, and state courts, all parties involved must get a copy of the filing being put on the docket. Same goes for federal court. However, there is one big difference.

In a federal probation case, a Sheriff or service doesn’t have to be used to deliver the documents to all parties. There are many reasons for this, but they aren’t really important. The point here is that a defendant can mail all the copies out and not have to pay a service to legally do it for them. To make this work, and document called a “Certificate of Service” must accompany all documents that are intended to be filed.

When a motion to terminate a term of federal probation, the certificate of service goes with each envelope. One to the prosecutor, one to the clerk of the court. If you get in touch, we’ll even e-mail you an example of a Certificate of Service you can use.

Mouse-over for pro tip #3

 

The Motion

There are far too many issues to delve into when it comes to writing a motion like this here, and each motion and issue is personal. Fill-in-the-blank motions aren’t very effective because there are eight laws and nine policy factors that go into a single decision a judge makes about modifying a defendant’s sentence.

Don’t be fooled by the seemingly small nature of this request. Ending a term of federal probation before its natural expiration is, legally, a sentence reduction and judges take those seriously. You can read up on some of our posts regarding what judges look at in these types of motions here, here, and here. Look to the upper right to read all our blog posts regarding federal probation and supervised release, but those three are good to get started.

What We Do

Here at PCR Consultants, we know how to do it all. We do the heavy lifting so you don’t have to become an expert in all the things you just read about. If you choose to file a request to federal court yourself, you now have the tools to do it. That is, assuming, that you crafted a legally sound, well argued, correctly formatted motion that won’t get dismissed for a technical fault (like applying before the one-year point)

Our service is simple. We put together all the paperwork like any other document preparation service, except we don’t do Wills or Divorces. We do Federal Probation and Supervised Release. Get in contact to find out how we can help.

 

How Often Does Your Federal Probation Officer Visit?

How often your federal probation officer visits is an important question for all persons under the supervision of the United States Probation Office (USPO). This small piece of information is very helpful when considering a request for early release from federal probation (or federal supervised release).1

Levels of Supervision

Each federal district has a large amount of discretion over local USPO policy. For this reason, the treatment of probationers and supervisees can vary widely. However, because of the policy set forth in Monograph 109 (available here), much of how those under federal supervision are treated remains similar everywhere.

Generally, when an inmate of the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is released from custody, that inmate goes to a halfway house. Once their time in the halfway house is finished, a term of supervised release begins. Initially the level of supervision on the outset is the highest it will be for the supervisee. This includes residential visits from the PO to approve housing, and a visit or two to the supervisee’s job site to verify employment.

Monthly in-person visits from a PO are common in the first months of supervision. After a year or so (maybe even sooner) those visits become more infrequent. This signifies a change in “Supervision Intensity” or some such phrase as used by the local USPO. A supervisee will rarely hear of the internal policy or paperwork involved in the levels of supervision, but the intensity by which the supervision occurs can be easily observed.

Different districts have different names and levels of supervision, but this observation is important! Read on to find out why…

Why You Should Care

There are a lot of reasons to want to get off of federal supervision as fast as possible, and those will be covered in a later post. How often you see your probation officer is discussed above and illuminates information that is important to this cause. Why, you ask?

This descending intensity of supervision is an indicator that the USPO is less interested in a supervisee. Less interest means they believe that there is less of a threat to society posed by the supervisee. That means the USPO is much less likely to stand in the way of a bid to get off of supervision early. If the USPO isn’t standing in the way, the judge is much more likely to grant the request.

This is a great thing! Paying attention to the amount of attention you are getting from your federal probation officer makes you better informed for your request for early termination. Early termination is freedom, and freedom is priceless!

  1. There is little difference between federal supervised release and federal probation. In short, if a federal defendant is sentenced to prison, they will enter a term of supervised release upon completion of that sentence. Conversely, if the defendant was sentenced to no prison time, they will be considered on probation. The supervising officers are the same for both and there is almost no difference, legally, between the two. []

Support for Early Termination of Supervised Release

When asking a sentencing court to terminate a defendant’s supervision early, scoring points with objective facts is important. Many judges don’t see early termination as routine, and only grant these requests in exceptional cases.

What can change their mind? In part, convince judges that keeping you on supervision is expensive and dangerous. Sound impossible? Read on…

Protect the Public

Early Termination of Supervised Release

The US Courts puts out the Federal Probation Journal 3 times a year. This past fall, the Journal posted findings of a study comparing those on probation versus those on supervised release. It also compared those who were terminated early from supervised release to those who went full term. The results were pretty startling.

The article gets started this way:

UNDER 18 U.S.C. §§ 3564(c) and 3583(e)(1), the court may terminate terms of probation in misdemeanor cases at any time and terms of supervised release or probation in felony cases after the expiration of one year of supervision, if satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of an offender and is in the interest of justice. As such, early termination is a practice that holds promise as a positive incentive for persons under supervision and as a measure to contain costs in the judiciary without compromising the mission of public safety.

Those released early from supervision (regardless if that supervision was probation or supervised release) had half the re-arrest rate in the years after their early termination than those with natural expiration.

…almost 15 percent (14.7) of all cases in the study cohort had a new arrest and offenders who served their entire supervision term had a rate nearly twice that of the offenders who received early termination (19.2 percent to 10.2 percent, respectively). Similarly, the rearrest rates for both study groups for major offenses only were tabulated (see Table 6). When minor offenses are excluded, the recidivism rates for both early-term and full-term offenders are considerably lower, but the proportion of rearrests between the two groups is consistent. Only 5.9 percent of early-term offenders were rearrested for a major offense following their release from supervision compared to 12.2 percent of full-term offenders.

This isn’t a magic bullet, but it certainly furthers any argument toward gaining release from federal oversight.

Hilarity in a Federal Probation Revocation Hearing

“After violating the terms of his supervised release, Appellant was sentenced to prison and an additional period of supervised release, including special conditions. The Fifth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the special condition without demonstrating that the condition was reasonably related to statutory factors.”

The above quote comes from a federal probation revocation hearing, published online over at the Federal Criminal Appeals Blog, and is part of a larger (sometimes humorous) story of a man named Sammy Salazar (US v. Salazar, 5th Cir 2014). Mr. Salazar was serving a 10-year suspended sentence for third degree sexual abuse when he failed to register as a sex offender and earned himself a new felony.

Time served, plus fifteen (15) years of supervised release with a bunch of special conditions on his supervision. He appealed those special conditions and got a bunch removed.1

Later, Mr. Salazar assaulted somebody in his family2 and got his supervision revoked: prison for 12 months and 14 years of supervision.  Again along with a bunch of special conditions of supervision.

Defense attorney objected, and led to the funniest written exchange between judge and lawyer I’ve seen in a long time:

Judge : Counsel, I’m aware that this is what went up on appeal because they weren’t written at the time of the sentence. This is not the original sentence. This is a new sentence on revocation. I am adding these conditions. I may do so under the terms of the supervised release and a revocation. So these are additional conditions that I am imposing on the revocation.

Saad: Then Your Honor, we would object and make a new objection that they’re overly burdensome and …

Jude: Overruled, counselor.

Saad: …and…

Judge: Overruled.

Saad: Thank you, Your Honor.

Judge: Overruled.

The defense attorney pissed the judge off to the point where defense’s GRATITUDE was overruled. Well done counselor.

  1. Removal of these special conditions wasn’t because Salazar didn’t need them, or deserve them, it was simply because the judge ordered only a few of these special conditions out loud in court. The rest of the conditions were snuck in outside of oral orders and were thrown out by the Appeals Court. []
  2. without a doubt, Mr. Salazar isn’t a man I want to get to know. Most times, important decisions are made and important precedents are set because of very unlikeable characters such as Salazar []

Shadow Sentencing: The Imposition of Supervised Release

A paper posted to SSRN back a few weeks ago takes a close look at the imposition and issues surrounding federal supervised release. Nearly all visitors to PCR Consultants are supervised by the United States Probation Office (USPO) and want to know more. Want to find relief. We offer services that help former offenders get early release from supervision, but our goal is also to create some community.

After completing post incarceration supervision, there isn’t much a former offender hasn’t experienced with the criminal justice system. The entire paper is worth a read, but below is how it gets started:

More than 95 percent of people sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the federal system are also sentenced to a term of supervised release. Since it was first established in the late 1980s, nearly one million people have been sentenced to federal supervised release. The human and fiscal costs of this widespread imposition are significant. Supervised release substantially restricts an individual’s liberty and people on supervised release receive diminished legal and constitutional protections. The fiscal costs of supervised release are also high, particularly when almost one third of people on supervised release will have their supervision revoked and will return to prison.

Despite the importance of supervised release, little is known about how and why sentencing judges impose supervised release and what purpose it is supposed to serve in the federal criminal justice system. In most cases, supervised release is not mandatory and yet judges consistently fail to exercise their discretion in this area and impose supervised release in virtually all cases. Based on an empirical study of sentencing decisions in the Eastern District of New York, this article uncovers previously unidentified features of supervised release. It finds that judges widely impose supervised release without any apparent consideration of the purpose served by the sentence. This article argues that supervised release is over-used and proposes a new framework for its imposition to ensure that courts only impose supervised release on people who need it.

You can download and read the entire 51 page piece by clicking this link.

Read more about supervision on this site by visiting our page dedicated to federal supervision.

A Good Week For Federal Probation Termination

The Feeling of Freedom after federal probation termination

Here at PCR Consultants we periodically like to share our success stories with readers and future clients. Since the launch of our Federal Supervision Release services, we have seen a large increase in the number of visitors seeking federal probation termination (that’s the official term for early release from federal probation) and a lot of their successes are coming in.

In the week of March 11-17th, 2013 two such success stories came to us back-to-back. Their release dates are over three weeks apart, but we heard the news last week. With the permission of the clients, we’ve published one testimonial and both of their release orders below. (Names and case numbers are redacted per client request).

Successes

These are just the first few:

Our first client was one of the first to sign up and use our online document services to prepare his Motion to Terminate Supervised Release. His motion was filed on 12/3/12, termination order was issued on 1/18/13. That is 46 days from filing to early termination of federal supervised release.

For those that keep track, he served just over 23 out of 48 months on supervision. Its great news when we see clients release before even serving half their term! Take a look at his release order.

Our second client success story of the week petitioned outside of her supervisory district because court oversight was never transferred to where she lived and was supervised. She served 41 months out of 48, and was released on 2/13/13 (docketed filing date not specified on record). Take a look at her release order.

She even supplied a testimonial, which she has allowed us to publish as well:

“My name is [withheld] & I am writing to say thanks for your assistance on my Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release. I talked to & worked a lot with Eric prior to obtaining PCR’s assistance as well as after hiring the company. I am pleased to inform you that the motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release was granted and I am no longer under supervision or in care of the federal government or a probation officer. Originally, I had wanted to file in Colorado Springs rather than the state I was convicted in (NE) & for good reasons but unbelievably NE granted the termination & I have the papers to prove it, lol. Thank You (everyone involved) for all your help! I will be letting others know and referring your business to those who, like myself, are just a waste of time and taxpayers money. Sincerely,
[withheld]”

Thank you for those kind words!

Revoking Federal Supervised Release

This article is a bit old, but we dug it up out of the archives from the Kansas Federal Defender Blog. Sentences handed down after revoking federal supervised release and probation can be run consecutively, even if the court re-starts supervision post-release.

However, this isn’t necessary, as revocation sentences for supervised release and probation violations are not mandatory. Just like regular sentences after U.S. v. Booker, these guidelines in USSG §7B1.3(f) are advisory, and have been even before Booker.

Here is the meat of the article:

Here are a couple of points about supervised release revocations, some good and some bad:

Concurrent sentences are allowed. The ‘mandatory’ part: the violation report will say that a SRV sentence “shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving,” whether or not related to the SRV, citing §7B1.3(f). Sounds kinda mandatory, doesn’t it? But not so.

The ‘advisory’ part: Even before Booker, the revocation guidelines were only advisory because the Commission issued only policy statements rather than actual guidelines (the SRV report usually notes this when advising that the Court that it can go ‘outside’ the range without notice, citing the upward departure case of Burdex). Still, the question often arises whether concurrent sentences are permissible. The Tenth Circuit says yes , the district court has discretion to impose concurrent sentences, not withstanding the advisory mandate of §7B1.3(f), as this is allowed by 18 USC §3584.

Timing is Everything. Nice published opinion from the 10th Cir this week in US v. Crisler , which rebuffed the Court/USPO’s attempt to revoke a defendant after supervision had expired, even though revocation proceedings were pending. Citing 18 U.S.C. § 3565(c),

“the court cannot revoke probation after the term of probation has expired unless (1) the delay in revocation was reasonably necessary and (2) a warrant or summons issued before the expiration date. Neither condition was met here. It is undisputed that the amended petition for revocation was filed after the probation term had expired. And even if the “amended” petition is deemed to relate back to the original petition of April 5, 2006, with respect to the alcohol-related allegation, it was not “reasonably necessary” to delay revocation until after expiration of the term of probation.”

The same language applies to SRV’s, per 18 USC §3583(e) and (i).

Not so nice. A recent guideline amendment, effective 11.1.2006, imposed or perhaps clarified, that three offense levels should be added when an offense was committed on PRETRIAL release, USSG §3C1.3. (Btw, to avoid confusion, USSG here refers to the guidelines, not the other USSG, United Skates School Group.) This attempts conformance with 18 USC §3147, usually referenced at the Rule 5 when released on bond. Remember, ‘appropriate sentencing notice’ must be provided before this three levels applies, but the Rule 5 advice may serve as notice, US v. Browning. 61 F3d 752 (10th Cir 1995).

This article is a bit more legally technical than the average blog post here at PCR Consultants, but the content is good and can be very important.

Avoiding violations is always best, but not always easy. E-mail us if you need some solid information regarding supervised release, and how to keep out of trouble.

Ending Federal Probation in the Age of Sequestration

Update: 4/21/14

It seems as though Sequestration changed the way many probation departments handled early release requests. For most of Summer/Fall 2013, probation officers were ending federal probation early for their supervisees on their own request. However, it seems that this trend is waning and there is a heightened need for do-it-yourself motions. E-mail us or give us a call to find out how to do this!

Ending Federal Probation Early – The New Game

The topic of the federal budget sequestration hasn’t arisen much in the news much since early Spring. However, it is important to know that these distasteful budget cuts are still in effect, and will seemingly remain in effect for the near future.

In a time where government budgets are stretched, nowhere is this more apparent than in the federal justice system. Dated August 13, 2013 a letter was sent to congress signed by 87 Chief District Judges that dealt specifically with the budget cuts the Sequestration has made to the federal judiciary.

Here’s the most interesting part for those seeking federal probation termination:

“As a result of sequestration, funding allocations sent out to court units were cut 10 percent below the fiscal year 2012 level. Clerks of court and probation and pretrial services offices will downsize by as many as 1,000 staff during fiscal year 2013 due to this reduction in funding. Staffing in these same offices has been reduced by nearly 2,100 staff between July 2011 and July 2013, representing a 10 percent staffing loss to the Judiciary over this two-year period. Our current staffing level is the lowest it has been since 1999 despite significant workload growth during this same period of time. In addition to downsizing, the courts have already incurred 4,500 furlough days as of June 2013, and an additional, 4,100 furlough days are projected by the end of the fiscal year.”

. . . and later:

“Funding cuts to the Judiciary have also put public safety at risk. The Judiciary employs nearly 6,000 law enforcement officers—probation and pretrial services officers—to supervise individuals in the community after they have been convicted of a crime and subsequently released from prison, as well as defendants awaiting trial. The number of convicted offenders under the supervision of federal probation officers hit a record 187,311 in 2012 and is on pace to reach 191,000 by 2014. At a time when the workload in our probation and pretrial offices continues to grow, budget cuts have reduced funding allocations to these offices by 10 percent. Staffing in probation and pretrial services offices is down nearly 600 (7 percent) since 2011.”

Hit ‘Em Where it Hurts

No matter the political leaning of a specific judge, the fact that 87 out of 94, or 92.5%, Chief judges signed this letter1 shows that budget problems have their attention.

The one place judges can agree, and where a probationer (or those on federal supervised release) can focus on, is the Court’s pocketbook. Want to hit ’em where it hurts? Try the wallet.

 

PCR Consultant’s Probation Termination service

This, like many other current issues that affect the federal courts, is used to its maximum effectiveness in each of our client’s services. When the goal is ending federal probation early, using as many arguments like this as possible only helps. If you want to get started on the road to terminating federal supervised release early, click here.

  1. When, as federal district judge Richard G. Kopf (NE) said in this article about the letter “As a former Chief District Judge, I know that you can almost never get 87 Chief District Judges to agree about when the sun comes up. The fact that 87 of them wrote the foregoing letter to Congress ought to make clear that the federal district courts are inches away from disaster. Congress is on the brink of intentionally wrecking the federal trial courts. Will sanity prevail?” []