NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING DOCKET NO. OJP (DOJ) 1540

AG ORDER NO. 3255-2011; RIN1121-AA77

76 FR 11705 (MARCH 3, 2011)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR

STATE CAPITAL COUNSEL SYSTEMS

MEETING SUMMARY

RE: MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF U.S. 

COURTS

DATE/TIME OF MEETING: MAY 11, 2011 2:00 PM-3:00 PM 

PLACE OF MEETING: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RFK BUILDING 

ATTENDEES: 

FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF U.S. COURTS:

Steve Asin, Deputy Assistant Director of Office of Defender Services, Administrative 

Office of U.S. Courts 

Mark Blaskey, Attorney Advisor in Office of Defender Services, Administrative Office 

of U.S. Courts

Peter Owen, Office of Legislative Affairs, Administrative Office of U.S. Courts

Mark Olive, National Habeas Assistance and Training Counsel

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:

Pamela Harris, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy

Lisa Ellman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy

Caroline Nguyen, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy

SUMMARY OF MEETING: 

The representatives of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts requested a meeting with the 

Department of Justice to discuss their reactions to and comments on the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM), which was formally published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2011. The 

representatives introduced the session by describing the Office of Defender Services at the 

Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, and its interest in the proposed rule. They stated their belief 

that the proposed rule was a considerable improvement over the previous (now removed) rule on the 

subject. They expressed gratitude to the Department, and offered their support and assistance to the 

Department in finalizing this proposed rule. 
The Department opened the session by explaining that this meeting, in accordance with office 

policy, was to be a listening session only. The Department emphasized that it welcomed comments 

to the proposed rule, and would carefully consider all submissions. 

The meeting continued with the representatives of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts

making a number of specific suggestions about the proposed rule. In particular, the representatives 

expressed their concerns that, under the current version of the proposed rule: 1) there was no 

assurance that the petitioner would receive complete and fair course of collateral review, given the 6-

month timeframe in the statute for filing a federal petition; 2) the qualification provisions were 

potentially inadequate because § 26.22(b)(1) does not account for capital experience in particular, nor 

habeas / post-conviction experience; 3) the enforcement mechanism is weak, and so the Department 

should add additional monitoring provisions from the Innocence Protection Act. The representatives 

of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts also noted that it would be helpful to know what the state 

application would be required to look like, and requested that the Department publish denials of 

certification requests. 

The meeting ended with the Department encouraging the representatives to lay out the full 

extent of their recommendations in their written comments.