Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/09/02/2015-21094/paroling-recommitting-and-supervising-federal-prisoners-prisoners-serving-sentences-under-the-united
Timestamp: 2018-04-21 01:15:13
Document Index: 437561802

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20092']

Federal Register :: Paroling, Recommitting and Supervising Federal Prisoners: Prisoners Serving Sentences Under the United States and District of Columbia Codes
A Rule by the Parole Commission on 09/02/2015
Effective September 2, 2015.
52982-52984 (3 pages)
Docket No. UPSC 2014-01
Public Comment From the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-21094 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-21094
Stephen J. Husk, Case Operations Administrator U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20530, telephone (202) 346-7061. Questions about this publication are welcome, but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered over the phone.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking published at 79 FR 47603-47605, we discussed the possible revision of our rules pertaining to decisions to revoke terms of supervision without a revocation hearing for persons charged with only administrative violations or specifically identified misdemeanor crimes. We refer you to the previous publication for a review of the background material. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, we encouraged the public to comment on our proposed changes and we received two written comments from interested persons and/or organizations. However, only one public comment, submitted by the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, suggested modifications to the proposed rule.
PDS recommends that we develop a new risk assessment tool to be applied to all residents of the District of Columbia. While we may review the effectiveness of risk assessment tools used for all cases under our jurisdiction, we believe that the final rule for special procedures for swift and short-term sanctions should be extended only to those persons who commit low level violations of supervision.
Paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule stated that, notwithstanding our general policy, when revoking supervised release for administrative violations under this paragraph, we may impose new terms of supervised release that are less than the maximum authorized term. PDS recommends that we provide training to our Hearing Examiners to impose shorter terms of supervision even when revoking supervised release for other types of violations.
Based on the comments, the final rule omits the language from paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule. We are permitted to impose periods of supervised release that are less than the maximum authorized term for all Start Printed Page 52983supervised release violators. Therefore, the language from paragraph (d)(3) of the proposed rule is unnecessary and inaccurately implies that we are not permitted to impose shorter periods of supervised release when revoking for other types of violations.
PDS suggests that the inclusion of the proposed rule under the section entitled Revocation Decision Without a Hearing inaccurately implies that a person sanctioned under this paragraph is waiving any type of hearing and not just a revocation hearing. We believe that the proposed rule was included in the correct section. All other processes for revocation without a hearing outlined in § 2.66 refer to persons that waive a revocation hearing after a probable cause determination has been made. The procedures set forth in paragraph (d) are the same in that regard.
PDS expressed a concern that persons arrested outside the District of Columbia will not receive legal advice when deciding to apply for a sanction under paragraph (d)(1) of the proposed rule. Because all alleged violators of supervision are provided with the right to request an attorney at the probable cause proceeding, we are satisfied that all alleged violators who qualify for sanction under this paragraph will be provided with an attorney if they want one.
The proposed rule allows for a prison sanction of “no more than 8 months” for persons sentenced pursuant to § 2.66(d). During the pilot project that preceded publishing of the proposed rule, we issued policy statements to guide our Hearing Examiners as to the expected length of the prison term within the 8 month range. The policy statements provided a guide as to the length of the prison sanction based solely on the type of administrative violation that had occurred. However, the policy statements were not included in the proposed rule. PDS commented that failure to include these policy statements is inherently unfair because it punishes all administrative violations the same.
We have determined that it is not necessary to include the policy statements in the final rule. We have decided over 1,000 cases under these procedures since the pilot project began in 2012. A review of the data for those cases showed that we were not following the policy statements in a high number of cases. When the length of the prison term differed from what was suggested by the policy statements, the term was usually shorter than what was suggested. This included the decision to sentence over 200 alleged violators who had absconded from supervision to time served despite the policy statement that suggested that they serve between 5 and 8 months. There are a number of factors other than the type of violation that we consider in determining the length of a prison sanction. Based on our extensive experience in sanctioning alleged violators during the pilot project, we believe we can fairly consider all persons that qualify for a sanction under this section without using policy statements that are based solely on the type of administrative violation that has occurred.
PDS requested that the Commission eliminate or modify the requirement in paragraph (d)(1)(v) of the proposed rule that an alleged violator cannot be sanctioned twice under this section. We find this to be an appropriate requirement and consistent with the alleged violator's agreement to modify his or her non-compliant behavior to successfully complete any remaining period of supervision as indicated in (d)(1)(iv).
The proposed rule did not include any method for an alleged violator to ask the Commission to reconsider a decision to disapprove a sanction under this paragraph or to approve a sanction that is greater than recommended by a Hearing Examiner. It also did not require a Commissioner, when disapproving a case that qualifies, to provide a written explanation. PDS requested that the final rule include these procedures.
We have determined that these procedures are not necessary. To be sanctioned under this paragraph, an alleged violator must agree to a sanction of “no more than 8 months.” Thus, we do not believe it is appropriate to allow that same individual the right to petition the Commission to reconsider a decision that is within the scope of the written agreement. Also, a decision not to approve an alleged violator for a sanction under this paragraph only means that the Commission has decided that a revocation hearing will be conducted. If the alleged violator is not satisfied with the result of that hearing, he or she has the right to appeal the decision.
End List of Subjects Start Printed Page 52984
2. In § 2.66, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d) Special procedures for swift and short-term sanctions for administrative violations of supervision. (1) An alleged violator may, at the time of the probable cause hearing or preliminary interview, waive the right to a revocation hearing and apply in writing for an immediate prison sanction of no more than 8 months. Notwithstanding the reparole guidelines at § 2.21, the Commission will consider such a sanction if—
(i) The releasee has not already postponed the initial probable cause hearing/preliminary interview by more than 30 days;
(2) A sanction imposed pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section may include any other action authorized by § 2.52, § 2.105, or § 2.218.
(3) Any case not approved by the Commission for a revocation sanction pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall receive the normal revocation hearing procedures including the application of the guidelines at § 2.21.
Note to paragraph (d). For purpose of paragraph (d)(1) of this section only, the Commission will consider the sanctioning of the following crimes as administrative violations if they have been charged only as misdemeanors: