What Happens After Federal Prison

Pre-Release

After federal prison, an inmate is either sent to a federal half-way house, or placed directly on Supervised Release (Federal Probation is reserved for those who never received a prison sentence). An inmate, while in the halfway house, is still under the custody of the federal Bureau of Prisons and can therefore be subject to release or relief in the same way they were while incarcerated (see Incarceration). Anything from home-confinement to early release is possible from a half-way house. PCR Consultants can help.

Post-Release, and Supervised Release

After full release from the BOP into the hands of the local United States Probation Office, a former federal inmate has years of probation((called Supervised Release)) to deal with. Supervised release comes with a host of general and specific rules that must be followed, or the supervisee faces more prison time. However, PCR Consultants can help you here too. From changing the terms of your release to better suit you to ending probation altogether, you can affect your own future and we can show you how.

Whether you need to modify (change or eliminate) a term of Supervised Release from your J & C Order, or motion to be released from Supervision altogether, PCR Consultants can put the right law and paperwork in your hands for a FRACTION of the cost of an attorney.

When on federal probation or supervised release (after federal prison time is served), the specific rules applied to each individual are unique. Most of the time these rules are lengthy and confusing so violations can occur accidentally by the probationer. Learn how to live on probation, how to be successful on probation, and how to structure actions to obtain your release sooner from supervision.

Get started today and be on your way to early termination in minutes!

Learn About Us

For ways to contact us, visit our contact us page for contact form and e-mail addresses.

Learn about us and how our services work on our about page.

Clear Views on Supervised Release from the Seventh Circuit

Terms and Length of Supervision

It can be difficult to find discussions at the appellate level of district court obligations when deciding how to impose length and conditions of supervised release. It can be harder still to force a discussion at all from a district court at sentencing to understand the thought process behind these decisions.

On October 18, 2012 the Seventh Circuit published this short opinion in the case of US v. Quinn No. 12-2260 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2012). Its short length is reprinted in its entirety below.

Quinn asked the judge to choose a ten-year term of supervised release. He submitted a forensic psychologist’s evaluation, which concluded that he has a lower than- normal risk of recidivism. He also submitted the testimony that two psychologists (Michael Seto and Richard Wollert) recently had presented to the Sentencing Commission regarding the recidivism rate for persons convicted of child-pornography offenses…. [But] the district judge did not discuss either the length of supervision or the terms that Quinn would be required to follow while under supervision.

The prosecutor has confessed error, and we agree with the prosecutor’s conclusion that a district judge must explain important decisions such as the one at issue here. On remand the judge should consider not only how Quinn’s arguments about recidivism affect the appropriate length of supervised release, but also the interaction between the length and the terms of supervised release. The more onerous the terms, the shorter the period should be. One term of Quinn’s supervised release prevents contact with most minors without advance approval. Quinn has a young child, whom he has never been accused of abusing. Putting the parent-child relationship under governmental supervision for long periods (under this judgment, until the son turns 18) requires strong justification.

Our research has turned up only a few decisions that discuss the relation between the terms and length of supervised release. The third circuit has observed that the more onerous the term, the greater the justification required — and that a term can become onerous because of its duration as well as its content…. Rules that allow public officials to regulate family life likewise call for special justification, and lifetime regulatory power is hard to support when the defendant has not been convicted of crimes against his family or other relatives. Other terms of Quinn’s supervised release also may require strong justification when extended for a lifetime.

Although district judges can reduce the length of supervised release, or modify its terms, at any time, 18 U.S.C. §3583(e) — an opportunity that may lead a judge to think that uncertainties at the time of sentencing should be resolved in favor of a long (but reducible) period — still this is a subject that requires an explicit decision by the judge after considering the defendant’s arguments. The judge also should consider the possibility of setting sunset dates for some of the more onerous terms, so that Quinn can regain more control of his own activities without needing a public official’s advance approval, while enough supervision remains to allow intervention should Quinn relapse.

Take Aways

Most notably in this decision, at least in this bloggers opinion, is the call1 for “sunset dates” on the more onerous terms of supervised release. Naturally, the longer a released inmate spends on supervision without incident, the less restrictive and intrusive the terms of release should be (considering the goal of supervision is re-integration back into the community.

Applause goes to the 7th Circuit for hitting this issue head-on and laying out very simple-to-understand guidance for district courts regarding the imposition of federal supervised release or probation.

Ending Supervised Release Early

Of course, there is no need to ever complete a full term of supervision, as seen in the last paragraph of the opinion above. Trouble is, though most people on federal supervision know that ending supervised release early can be done, most don’t know how and won’t pay a lawyer a ton of money to get it done. The cost can outweigh the benefit.

Fortunately, PCR Consultants (that’s us) have been helping people for the last 3 years accomplish this task on their own, at the fraction of the cost of an attorney doing it for you. All that is necessary is to represent yourself on paper and file a request like this to the supervising court.

Learn more by reading our e-book. Start the process of ending your supervision now by contacting us by e-mail or phone (or our contact submission form) today.

  1. Written by Chief Judge Esterbrook for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals []

Federal Supervised Release Conditions – Restrictions on Court Discretion

Federal Supervised Release Conditions

Federal supervision is oftentimes misunderstood. What conditions can a court impose and what conditions are too much? This post is intended to clear the fog a bit using a case from Kentucky. This interesting case was decided by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year. In part, the appeals court threw out a lifetime ban on smart phones.

No iPhone for life? Not unless you have a really good reason!

When it comes to federal supervised release and probation, District Courts have broad discretion in the limitations they can place on defendants.

However, this discretion is not unlimited and sentencing judges must have a valid explanation for why each limitation is imposed. Legally speaking, conditions of supervised release are reviewed by appellate panels for abuse of discretion.1 A sentencing court’s discretion is limited by three standards. Each special condition must:

  1. “[be] reasonably related to the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)”;
  2. “involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary for the purposed set forth in § 3553(a)”; and
  3. “is consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”2

The 6th Circuit Sets Limits on District Courts

In United States v. Inman, the Sixth Circuit held that, even though Inman was a really bad guy, the district court judge went too far with special conditions and imposing a lifetime term of supervision. In plain English, each condition was a lifetime ban on something.

The district court judge set a number of conditions that no one asked for, or talked about at Mr. Inman’s sentencing hearing: he had to submit to mandatory drug testing; to notify the probation office if he is prescribed any medicine; to provide the probation office with all of his financial information; and he can never drink alcohol again, possess or use a device capable of creating pictures or video, or rent a storage facility or post office box.

On review, the appellate court reviewed for plain error. It had to determine if: the district court adequately stated in open court at the time of sentencing its rationale for mandating special conditions of supervised release and whether each condition of supervised release was reasonably related to the dual goals of probation, the rehabilitation of the defendant and the protection of the public.

The Kicker

Next comes the big test. Special supervised release conditions must:

“[I]nvolve[] no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to serve the goals of deterrence, protecting the public, and rehabilitating the defendant”3

What This All Means

In basic terms, these limitations mean that a district court judge cannot just impose whatever they please at a sentencing hearing in terms of special supervised release conditions. For a financial crime, requiring the defendant to turn over monthly financials may be imposed legally. However, imposing an alcohol ban on a defendant with no history of substance abuse usually cannot.

If you’d like PCR Consultants to take a look at your terms of supervision and help get rid of supervised release conditions that don’t meet these standards, please give us a call for a free consultation.

Let Us Help You!

Call us at (480) 382-9287 for a free consultation to find out how we can help.

For more ways to contact us, visit our contact us page for contact form and e-mail addresses.

Learn about us and how our services work on our about page.

  1. United States v. Heidebur, 417 F.3d 1002, 1007 (8th Cir. 2005) []
  2. United States v. Mark, 425 F.3d 505, 507 (8th Cir. 2005), citing 18 U.S.C. §3583; United States v. Boston, 494 F.3d 660, 667 (8th Cir. 2007). []
  3. 18 U.S.C. §3583(d)(1)-(2); United States v. Brogdon, 503 F.3d 555, 563 (6th Cir. 2007). Although this is a 6th Circuit case, most circuits have precedent that mirrors this standard. []

Supervised Release Termination Testimonials

Client Satisfaction at its Best

Supervised release termination, or early termination of federal probation, as a major part of what we do here at PCR Consultants. It is important for present and future clients to hear from the ones that came before them. Here is what one client had to say:

“I am extremely happy to tell you that the court has granted [my] motion for termination of supervised release!!! I can’t tell you how happy and grateful I am to you and your team! You did a brilliant job and I am happy to refer you to anyone I know that might need your services.”
– Ben

Ben’s supervised release termination ended 18-months before its natural expiration. His last name and case number have been withheld per his request.

Handling Supervised Release Termination

There is a big landscape of federal law and court decisions that guide judges when making decisions on whether or not to grant a defendant’s request to gain early release from federal supervision. Policy set forth by the US Sentencing Commission adds flavor to Title 18 of the United States Code, which tells judges what they must consider when a request like this comes to their desk.

Then there are studies, papers, data, and re-offense concerns that factor in. Using all these factors, plus a few items from our proprietary “Trick Bag”, PCR Consultants enjoys a very high success rate with clients seeking early termination of their supervised release or probation.

Our Services Work!

Follow the links below for judicial orders in favor of some our successful supervised release termination clients.

Supervision terminated within a week of request! (May 2014)

Supervised Release ended before two full years were served.

Supervised Release cut immediately.

Supervised Release ended over two years early, before half of the term was served!
(Client names redacted to protect privacy)

Federal Probation Revocation Hearings

An interesting case out of the Fourth Circuit was brought to my attention by this post by the Federal Criminal Appeals Blog entitled “Just Because It’s A Supervised Release Hearing Doesn’t Mean There Are No Rules.”

As the title suggests, federal probation revocation hearings are far less formal than a criminal trial. In fact, the rules that govern these hearings appear in only one section of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Rule 32.1. Below is an excerpt from the article.

Anthony Doswell was having a bad run of luck.

He was on supervised release from the end of a federal sentence. Supervised release works a bit like probation for those who have been in prison – folks coming out of a federal prison have a period of years where they have to check in with a probation officer, be drug tested, and, if they mess up, sent back to prison.

One big way to mess up is to commit a new crime. The rub is that a person can be violated – and sent back to prison – for committing a new crime, not just for being convicted of committing a new crime.

So, it’s possible for a person on supervised release to be charged with a new crime, beat the charge, then be sent to prison anyway.

Anthony Doswell was in a spot like that. He was on supervised release and had been charged with having some marijuana on his person. He also tested positive for heroin and didn’t show up to mental health treatment, or to meet with his supervising probation officer.

At the hearing, his lawyer learned that Mr. Doswell had previously been charged with heroin distribution.

Mr. Doswell objected to a violation of his supervised release based on the heroin. The government went forward with the allegation, providing the district court with the charging documents for the state court heroin distribution charge, as well as the chemist’s report.

The government did not call any witnesses.

The district court found that Mr. Doswell had violated his supervised release by selling heroin. As the Fourth Circuit summarized it,

Without explanation, the district court concluded that, “notwithstanding the objection,” the drug analysis report was “sufficient to support the [heroin] violation alleged.” Accordingly, the court found Doswell guilty of the heroin violation set forth in Supplemental Notice, a violation that the court concluded, “in itself, [wa]s sufficient for . . . a mandatory revocation [of Doswell’s supervised release].” The court then sentenced Doswell to the statutory maximum, twenty-four months of imprisonment.

On appeal, the only issue the Fourth Circuit dealt with, in United States v. Doswell, was whether, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2), Mr. Doswell had a right to have the witnesses against him testify.

The government argued that under a prior Fourth Circuit case, and the general principle that revocation hearings are less formal, it didn’t have to have a witness there.

Mr. Doswell, instead, suggested the court of appeals look at the language of Rule 32.1(b)(2), which says that at a revocation hearing, a person has an opportunity to appear, present evidence, and question any adverse witness unless the court determines that the interest of justice does not require the witness to appear

Since the district court spent exactly no time balancing whether the interests of justice didn’t require the chemist to testify against Mr. Doswell, the Fourth Circuit reversed the finding of violation and remanded.

We don’t do many posts on revocation hearings here, but the issue is important to both the federal process and our clients. If you have any questions regarding revocation (and especially how to avoid them) please give us a call at (480) 382-9287.

Little Known Factors for Ending Federal Probation Early

Approval for Ending Federal Probation EarlyThere’s No “Sure Thing”

There is no silver bullet to getting ending federal probation early, no guarantees that any applicant for early release from supervision will have his or her request granted. That decision, in all cases, is ultimately up to the judge. There are, however, some little known facts that can help those on supervision get an edge that other applicants don’t have.

The Good News

Secret #1: There are different levels of supervision, and Judges care!
The United States Probation Office is the supervising authority over all federal cases and defendants sentenced to probation or supervised release. Within that office are policies that govern how intensely clients are supervised.

“How long has it been since you’ve see your PO?”

 

Secret #2: The Sentencing Commission is now ENCOURAGING judges to terminate supervision terms!

 

On November 1, 2011, this year’s amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines Manual became active. One major amendment concerned Supervised Release. It did lots of things like reduce the term of supervision on different felony classes and discuss supervision of deportable aliens. Stuff like that. More importantly, though, was the Commission’s new stance on Early Terminations.

 

Read More About Ending Federal Probation Early

There are 17 other factors in statute and policy that guide judges to their decisions in ending federal probation early. Read more about these statutory factors and policy factors on the probation termination section of our blog**

You can read, free of charge, our comprehensive e-book on terminating federal supervised release and probation by clicking here.

November Round-Up

From Crack Cocaine Sentence Reductions to Early Termination of Supervised Release

November has been a big month in the world of federal corrections. Due to all the recent events, this will be a lengthy post on all matters federal-criminal.

New Retroactive Crack Law

The United States Sentencing Commission’s 2011 Amendments to their Guidelines Manual were enacted on November 1st. In these amendments, the Sentencing Commission made the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactive in sentence reductions.

Inmates may now petition their sentencing courts to reduce their Crack Cocaine sentences if sentenced before August 3, 2010. There are too many details about this to effectively discuss in this singular article, but here are the highlights:

  1. Sentences must be for 21 U.S.C. §841 or §846
    • §841 (1) to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense, a controlled substance; or (2) to create, distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to distribute or dispense, a counterfeit substance.
    • §846 Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
  2. Sentencing must be issued under the drug quantity table of the Guidelines Manual
  3. In most Circuit Courts, commission of stated crime must have occurred after August 3, 2010 instead of just the sentencing occurring after this date.
    Exceptions are discussed in this prior post.

Federal Probation Early Termination (Supervised Release Too!)

Judges are now being told to cut people loose from federal supervised release and probation. Another amendment to the USSC Guidelines Manual specifically tells federal judges to consider early termination for anybody who is in their final phase of supervision.

In basic terms, if a supervisee is done with treatment, community service, or any other requirement of probation that has an expiration, that person is eligible for early release. If all that is left on supervision is simply monitoring for violations, you have a good chance of getting free. More on this subject on our Federal Probation Termination page.

Supreme Court Round-Up

The United States Supreme Court is collecting cases to hear on November 22, 2011 regarding application of Fair Sentencing Act reductions to “pipeline” cases (see exceptions, above). Davis and Hill are two of the cases regarding this issue that the Supreme Court needs to decide on in order to rectify a Circuit split. The 1st, 3rd, and 11th Circuits apply FSA to all cases sentenced after 8/3/10. The 7th Circuit applies the reduction to cases where the actual crime was committed after that date. All other Circuits are currently mute on the subject.

Also on the docket is the issue of juveniles receiving Life Without Parole sentences. Originally discussed back in 2010 on Sentencing Law and Policy, the Supreme Court is now taking another look at the constitutionality of sentencing kids to die in prison.

Below we’ve summarized the rest of what the Supreme Court has done so far this year:

1. A unanimous AEDPA ruling for the state: “The first opinion of the Term is in Greene v. Fisher. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court, which held that for purposes of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, ‘clearly established federal law’ is limited to the Supreme Court’s decisions ‘as of the time of the relevant state-court adjudication on the merits.’”

2. A hint during oral argument in US v. Jones (transcript here) that GPS tracking might require a warrant: “Midway through a federal government lawyer’s plea Tuesday for unrestricted power for police to use new GPS technology to track cars and trucks on public roads, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., sketched out just how the Court may well restrict the practice. Despite an unqualified prior statement by the Court that one moving about in public has absolutely no right to expect privacy, the Chief Justice said that such a right might exist, after all, and it could trump the fact that the movement was in public. If the Court can find a way to say just that, police almost certainly would have to get a warrant before using GPS to monitor where suspects go.”

3. A suggestion during oral argument in Smith v. Cain (transcript here) that SCOTUS that sometimes prosecutors should stop defending hinky convictions: “There may be many ways for a lawyer to realize that an argument before the Supreme Court is falling flat, but none can top this: a Justice asking if the counsel had ever considered simply forfeiting the case. That is what happened on Tuesday to Donna R. Andrieu, an assistant district attorney in New Orleans, as her argument lay all about her, in shambles.”

Federal Inmate-Related Bills In Congress

This isn’t specific to November, but many inmates and families of inmates are hungry for knowledge of what Congress will do next to give relief to federal inmates. Here’s a short list of bills currently proposed for this session:

  • H.R. 2316, the Fair Sentencing Clarification Act retroactively applies the sentence reductions included in last year’s Fair Sentencing Act (FSA). This means that inmates rendered ineligible for reductions because of preexisting mandatory minimum sentences would now benefit from FSA.((Read the 2014 version of the bill here)
  • H.R. 2242, Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2011 eliminates any disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentences. Its not retroactive, but makes the ratio that FSA brought from 100:1 to 18:1, down to 1:1.
  • H.R. 2344, the Prisoner Incentive Act of 2011 rewrites the good time statute to make clear that a prisoner is eligible to earn up to 54 days of good time credit per year for each year of the prisoner’s sentence. Since 1988, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has interpreted the good time statute to award good time credit based on the time actually served by the prisoner, not the sentence imposed by the judge. As a result, prisoners only earn a maximum of 47 days of good time for each year to which they are sentenced, instead of the 54 days per year many believed Congress intended.
  • H.R. 223, the Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2011 directs the Bureau of Prisons to release individuals from prison who have served 50 percent or more of their sentence if that prisoner: (1) is 45 years of age or older; (2) has never been convicted of a crime of violence; and (3) has not engaged in any violation, involving violent conduct, of institutional disciplinary regulations. The bill is intended to reduce overcrowding in federal prisons and give those nonviolent offenders over the age of 45 a second chance.

For more information on bills currently in Congress, visit the FAMM page regarding the subject.

As the holidays approach, hope can either strengthen or wane. PCR Consultants wishes all the best to the people it serves: Defendants, Inmates, Released Offenders, and their families. For more information on any subject here, give us a call at (480) 382-9287.

Early Termination of Federal Probation – Policy Factors

Early Termination of Federal Probation – The Policy That Guides Judges

Post #2 of a 3-Part Series

In this previous post on early termination of federal probation, we discussed the factors judges must consider by law when deciding whether or not to let somebody on federal supervision go early. In this post we’ll discuss the policy factors judges consider when making these decisions.

These policy factors are those that probation officers use when asked to make a recommendation regarding early termination of federal supervision. They are the standards adopted by the Judicial Conference Committee on Criminal Law in March of 2003.

Policy Factors

There are nine of these policy factors, and each take a closer look at the offender

A close look at these factors show that there are a lot of areas to consider when attempting to terminate a term of federal supervision. The entire history of an offender is considered. Find out about these factors by reading our e-book specifically about early termination of federal probation.

You can read our comprehensive e-book on early termination of federal probation here.

Those that haven’t gotten into any trouble while on supervision, don’t see their Probation Officer’s more than just a few times per year, and are a complete waste of time and money for the government to continue to supervise, have the greatest chance for early termination.

There are however, two factors not shown here than make the biggest difference. In the next post, we’ll take a look at both.

Early Release from Federal Probation – What Judges Must Consider

Early Release from Federal Probation

Post #1 of a 3-Part Series

In this first part to our series on early release from federal probation early (or supervised release), we’ll take a close look at the statutory factors that judges must consider when somebody on supervision asks for early termination. The only unbreakable rule here is that one year of supervision must expire before anybody can motion for early termination. The rest is up to the judge.

The next installment deals with the factors by policy that judges do, or may, consider.

Judicial Considerations by Law

Most of the factors judges must use to determine an appropriate sentence1 are also required to be used when terminating part of that sentence. Since probation and supervised release are part of a sentence, terminating them early is the same thing as reducing sentences.

Title 18 U.S.C. §3582(a) says that:

“(a) Factors To Be Considered in Imposing a Term of Imprisonment.— The court, in determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment, and, if a term of imprisonment is to be imposed, in determining the length of the term, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553 (a) to the extent that they are applicable, recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation. In determining whether to make a recommendation concerning the type of prison facility appropriate for the defendant, the court shall consider any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994 (a)(2).” (emphasis added)

So what are these factors? You can read what these factors are in the law here.

For a detailed review and discussion of what these factors mean, read our comprehensive e-book on terminating federal supervised release and probation here.

The best news, however is a 2011 amendment to the Guidelines Manual where the USSC2 specifically encourages judges grant early release from federa

l probation in specific cases. This is the first time they’ve every encouraged early termination of supervision at all.

What this all means

Not since the 80’s has there been a more advantageous time in the federal system to get released early from supervision. Whether on probation or supervised release, the USSC has realized that probation officers have too many people to supervise, and no budget to hire more probation officers. So the logical conclusion is to cut low-risk people free from supervision!

Get Started Today

To get started with your early termination documents now, contact us by e-mail or phone to get the process going. Its fast and easy!

 

Read our free e-book on the A-to-Z of federal probation and supervision!

  1. At least what is legally considered an appropriate sentence []
  2. United States Sentencing Commission []

US Sentencing Commission Posts 2011 Amendments

New 2011 Amendments from U.S.S.C.

With October upon us, and November first rapidly approaching, PCR Consultants is starting a yearly tradition of breaking down this year’s amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines as published by the US Sentencing Commission (U.S.S.C.). Each year, these amendments become active on the first day of November.

To find out how PCR Consultants can help you take advantage of these new amendments, contact us for a free consultation at (480) 382-9287.

Here is a breakdown of the Amendments, what changed, and how they may help or hurt federal defendants, inmates, and those on probation.

The Amendments

Fair Sentencing Act: The Commission re-submitted its changes to crack cocaine sentencing guidelines per the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. On June 30, 2011 the Commission voted unanimously to make the guidelines changes retroactive. Read more on our Crack Cocaine Sentence Reductions page.

Supervised Release: Learn more about getting early release from federal probation or supervised release with the help of PCR Consultants on our Early Termination Page. This year, four changes were made to Supervised Release and federal Probation:

  1. Deportable Aliens: This change effectively eliminates Supervised Release for defendants who are not required it by law, and are likely to be deported after imprisonment;
  2. Lesser Terms of Supervised Release: The Commission lowered the minimum term of Supervised Release under §2D1.2 from three years to two years from Class A and B felonies, and from 2 years to one year for Class C and D felonies;
  3. Guidance on Imposing Supervised Release Terms: The Commission added criminal history and substance abuse to what the court should consider in determining whether to impose supervised release, and for how long;1
  4. Early Termination of Supervised Release: §5D1.2, has been amended with language which specifically encourages courts to consider early termination of supervised release “in appropriate cases.” An example provided is a substance abuser who successfully completes a treatment program, “thereby reducing the risk to the public from further crimes of the defendant.”

Illegal Reentry: The Commission reduced but didn’t eliminate, the enhancements based on stale convictions or convictions that do not receive criminal history points under chapter 4 of the guidelines. This amendment also provides an upward departure if the new enhancement “does not adequately reflect the extent or seriousness of the conduct underlying the prior conviction.

Mitigating Role: This amendment changed the language of its notes to §3B1.2 (Mitigating Role) to encourage the courts to apply the adjustment therein. This amendment struck (1) from Application Note 3(c)2 and (2) from Application Note 43. This amendment encourages the court that it can, and should, give this adjustment when the only evidence of role rests upon circumstantial evidence and the defendant’s statement of his/her participation.

The US Sentencing Commission also changed the language of §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) to help clients who are charged with fraud crimes but benefited little from the overall fraud scheme.

Firearms: Guidelines §2K2.1 and §2M5.2 are changed for the worse. In §2K2.1, the Commission increased penalties for straw purchasers, added a 4-level enhancement (and floor of 18 points) when a defendant left or tried to leave the US while possessing any firearm or ammunition. There is, however, language for downward departure for straw purchasers who were motivated by an intimate or familiar relationship or by threats or fear to commit the offense, where no monetary benefit from the offense exists.

The changes to §2M5.2 raised penalties for cases involving small arms crossing the border, increasing the base offense level from 14 to 26 in cases involving more than two (changed from 10) non-fully automatic small arms.

Fraud: Responding to new health care legislation, §2B1.1 was amended in two ways. First, tiered enhancements for loss amounts of over $1 million were added. Second, a new rule for loss amounts in healthcare fraud cases was added, but is arguable.

Child Support: Defendants convicted of willful failure to pay court-ordered child support are no longer subject to a 2-level enhancement under §2B1.1(b)(8)(C).

Drug Disposal Act: This final amendment broadens the list of people who can be subject to an enhancement for abusing a position of trust or use of a special skill. This is ordinarily used in drug offenses.

**************************

  1. Adding these to the statutory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3583 []
  2. Stating that the court “is not required to find, based solely on the defendant’s bare assertion, that such a role adjustment is warranted” []
  3. The statement: “It is intended that the downward adjustment for minimal participant will be used infrequently []