Opinion ID: 3052892
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The BOP Regulations Violate the Clear and

Text: Unambiguous Congressional Intent Expressed in § 3621(b). Employing the Chevron analysis, we must first determine whether Congress’s intention regarding the BOP’s discretion in determining prisoner placements and transfers is clear from the text of 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). If the statute is clear, we then decide whether the BOP’s regulations violate that clearly expressed intent. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43. Smith relies on 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c) to explain the interplay between the BOP regulations and § 3621(b). He argues that because § 3624(c) limits when an inmate may be placed in an RRC, “prisoners have no right to be considered for an RRC placement until they have finished 90% of their sentence. Seen from this point of view, the BOP’s decision in the regulations to impose exactly this limitation is not only a reasonable interpretation of the statute, but the only reasonable interpretation.” In essence, Smith contends that in light of § 3624(c), Congress’s intent with respect to § 3621(b) is not clear from the statute, and thus deference is owed to the 12264 RODRIGUEZ v. SMITH BOP’s interpretations (as expressed in 28 C.F.R. §§ 570.20 and 570.21). [1] However, the plain language of both §§ 3621(b) and 3624(c) make clear that this argument must fail. Section 3621(b) provides in part that “[t]he Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoner’s imprisonment. The Bureau may designate any available penal or correctional facility that meets minimum standards of health and habitability established by the Bureau, whether maintained by the Federal Government or otherwise. . . . The Bureau may at any time . . . direct the transfer of a prisoner from one penal or correctional facility to another.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (emphases added). [2] Section 3624(c) provides: “The Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, assure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a reasonable part, not to exceed six months, of the last 10 per centum of the term to be served under conditions that will afford the prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the prisoner’s re-entry into the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c).4 [3] Contrary to Smith’s argument that § 3624(c) limits placement in RRCs to the last ten percent of the sentence being served, the statute provides that “of” the last ten percent of the prisoner’s sentence, the BOP shall, to the extent practicable, allow a prisoner to spend up to six months of that time in an institution such as an RRC. See id. (emphasis added). Thus, although this statute imposes an affirmative duty on the BOP to consider placing an inmate in community confinement or a similar pre-release alternative toward the end of the inmate’s prison term, it does not interfere with the BOP’s dis- 4 Section 3624(c) was amended effective April 9, 2008, slightly rewording the affirmative duty of the BOP to ensure to the extent practicable the release of a prisoner during the final months of the prisoner’s term. The statutory amendment does not affect this opinion. RODRIGUEZ v. SMITH 12265 cretionary authority to consider such placement prior to the last ten percent of the prison term. As noted, a majority of the other circuit courts that have considered this issue have concluded that the BOP’s interpretation of § 3624(c) is misplaced. See Wedelstedt, 477 F.3d at 1166 (“Although § 3624(c) surely imposes an affirmative obligation on the BOP, whenever practicable, to place an inmate in a CCC or other form of community confinement as the inmate’s release date nears, § 3624(c) has no bearing on whether a CCC may be considered as a place of imprisonment at some earlier point in a prisoner’s period of incarceration.”) (citations omitted); see also Woodall, 432 F.3d at 250; Goldings, 383 F.3d at 24; Elwood, 386 F.3d at 845-47.5 5 In support of his position that § 3624(c) limits placement into RRCs, Smith invokes our decision in United States v. Latimer, 991 F.2d 1509, 1514-15 (9th Cir. 1993), for the proposition that “[n]othing in § 3621(b) requires the BOP to recognize an RRC as an acceptable substitute for a term of imprisonment and [we] would be going against the Latimer ruling if [we] were to hold that RRCs were generally intended, or even permissible, places for serving a sentence of imprisonment.” In Latimer, we held that based on the differentiation of detention in community treatment centers and incarceration in prison in various sections of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the defendant’s confinement in a community treatment center did not constitute imprisonment for purposes of calculating his criminal history score under Section 4A1.2(e)(1). Latimer, 991 F.2d at 1514. In reaching this conclusion, we noted that the Commission had not “clearly said whether confinement in a community treatment center qualifies as incarceration,” and relied upon the rule of lenity as further support for our reading of the Guidelines, noting that the question would determine whether the defendant would be required to spend “an additional 15 years of his life behind bars.” Id. More recently, we ruled that placement in a Pre-Release Center did not constitute imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), and therefore did not toll the defendant’s supervisory release period. United States v. Sullivan, 504 F.3d 969, 971-72 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 63-65 (1995) (holding that time spent by prisoner at a community treatment center while “released on bail” was not “official detention”) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, in Latimer, our holding was limited to Section 4A1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines to calculate the 12266 RODRIGUEZ v. SMITH [4] Section 3621(b) specifically provides that the BOP has discretion to place an inmate into “any available penal or correctional facility” and to “direct the transfer of an inmate from one penal or correctional facility to another” “at any time.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). In contrast, the plain language of § 3624(c) addresses the separate and unrelated authority and obligation to place inmates into RRCs during the last ten percent of their sentences. Thus, we agree with the Tenth Circuit’s conclusion in Wedelstedt that “§ 3624(b) has no bearing on whether §§ 570.20 and 570.21 are consistent with the § 3621(b) statutory scheme for BOP placement and transfer determinations.” 477 F.3d at 1166. [5] Stripped of the attempted link to § 3624(c), Smith’s contention that the BOP’s temporal restriction on RRC placement comports with § 3621(b) is singularly unpersuasive. The BOP regulations necessarily violate the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress conveyed in § 3621(b), which defendant’s criminal history score, see 991 F.2d at 1514, and in Sullivan, to 18 U.S.C. § 3264(e), to determine tolling of the supervised release period. See 504 F.3d at 972. In both cases, an important factor was our recognition that ambiguous provisions should be interpreted for the benefit of the defendant/releasee. See Latimer, 991 F.2d at 1514 (applying the rule of lenity to “resolve ambiguities in favor of the criminal defendant.”); see also Sullivan, 504 F.3d at 972-73 (interpreting § 3264(e) and concluding that the supervised release period had expired, precluding revocation). These cases offer no assistance to Smith for two reasons. First, as discussed above, the statutory provisions in this case are unambiguous. Second, even if the provisions were ambiguous, the rule of lenity would dictate an interpretation favoring earlier placement in an RRC. In any event, the BOP itself has acknowledged that § 3261(b) grants it the authority to “place offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment in [RRCs].” See 69 Fed. Reg. at . Indeed, this discretion to place inmates into RRCs is the basis for the very BOP regulations Smith seeks to have upheld in this case. See Levine, 455 F.3d at 82. Thus, a discussion of whether confinement in an RRC constitutes imprisonment does not resolve the issue we face. RODRIGUEZ v. SMITH 12267 expressly instructs that all placement and transfer determinations take into consideration each of the five factors enumerated in the statute.6 That Congress intended the BOP to apply each of the factors is evidenced by the invocation of the word “and” between the fourth and fifth factors. See Wedelstedt, 477 F.3d at 1165 66; see also Hawaiian Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Com’n, 827 F.2d 1264, 1273 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting that use of the conjunctive indicates that all of the conditions listed must be met). As aptly stated in Wedelstedt, 477 F.3d at 1116, “[t]he relationships between the two statutes and between § 3621(b) and the regulations . . . lie at the core of the dispute . . .” “18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) . . . gives the agency discretion . . . . This delegation of discretion, however, is cabined by further mandatory direction . . . to consider the five factors enumerated in the statute . . .” Id. at 1165 (citation, alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). “After considering the language of § 3621(b) and the relationship between its qualified grant of discretion and § 3624(c)’s affirmative obligation,” the Tenth Circuit saw no conflict between the two statutes. Id. at 1166. The Tenth Circuit explained that: The statutory command in § 3621(b) stands alone as a clear and unambiguous articulation of congressio- 6 The factors the BOP must consider under § 3621(b) are: “(1) the resources of the facility contemplated; (2) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner; (4) any statement by the court that imposed the sentence—(A) concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be warranted; or (B) recommending a type of penal or correctional facility as appropriate; and (5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(2) of title 28.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). 12268 RODRIGUEZ v. SMITH nal intent regarding the process by which the BOP should make placement and transfer determinations. Although § 3624(c) surely imposes an affirmative obligation on the BOP, whenever practicable, to place an inmate in a CCC or other form of commu- nity confinement as the inmate’s release date nears, § 3624(c) has no bearing on whether a CCC may be considered as a place of imprisonment at some ear- lier point in a prisoner’s period of incarceration. Id. at 1166 (citations omitted); see also Levine, 455 F.3d at 75 (“[T]he combined import of the statutes was to give the BOP discretion to transfer an inmate to a CCC for a period longer than six months or ten percent of his sentence, but to oblige the BOP, where practicable, to transfer inmates to a CCC for a reasonable part of the last ten percent, not to exceed six months of his sentence.”) (citations omitted). The Second Circuit is in accord. See Levine, 455 F.3d at 82 (noting that § 3621(b) authorizes the BOP to “place a prisoner where it wishes so long as it considers the factors enumerated . . .”) (citations and emphasis omitted); see also Woodall, 432 F.3d at 245; Fults, 442 F.3d at 1092. We are persuaded that the BOP regulations conflict with the provisions of § 3621(b). As the Third Circuit decision explained: “While the BOP may exercise considerable discretion, it must do so using the factors the Congress has specifically enumerated.” Woodall, 432 F.3d at 247. We agree with the Third Circuit that an “unavoidable conflict” exists because the statute requires the BOP to consider five factors in determining CCC placement, while the regulation provides that the enumerated factors will not be fully considered. Id. at 249. We also join the Third Circuit in its conclusion that the regulations’ construction is not “permissible . . . because they fail to take into account Congress’s indications that certain individualized factors . . . should be considered . . .” Id. (citation omitted); see also Levine, 455 F.3d at 85 (“Categorical ruleRODRIGUEZ v. SMITH 12269 making, like all forms of agency regulation, must be consistent with unambiguous Congressional instructions . . .”); Fults, 442 F.3d at 1091. [6] In Muniz, the First Circuit concluded that the five factors listed in § 3621(b) were not exclusive. Muniz, 517 F.3d at 35. The First Circuit added that, in its view, “[n]othing in this passage requires consideration of the five factors for every facility or type of facility that is ruled out. Nor is there a clear expression of intent to withhold the authority to make rules of general applicability.” Id. at 38 (emphasis in original). We agree with the First Circuit that the statute contains no specific prohibition on rules of general applicability. The problem, however, is that the rules of general applicability promulgated by the BOP categorically exclude inmates from RRC eligibility without considering the mandatory factors articulated in § 3621(b). Although, as the First Circuit recognized, other factors may be considered, § 3621 and the accompanying legislative history embody unambiguous Congressional intent that the five factors not be ignored. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); see also S. Rep. No. 98-225, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3324-25 (“In determining the available or suitability of the facility selected, the Bureau is specifically required to consider such factors as the resources of the facility considered, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the prisoner, the statements made by the sentencing court concerning the purposes for imprisonment in a particular case, any recommendations as to type of facility made by the court, and any pertinent policy statements issued by the sentencing commission . . . After considering these factors, the Bureau of Prisons may designate the place of imprisonment in an appropriate type of facility, or may transfer the offender to another appropriate facility.”) (emphases added) (footnote reference omitted). Because the BOP regulations categorically exclude CCC placement of inmates with more than ten percent of their sen12270 RODRIGUEZ v. SMITH tences remaining, they necessarily fail to apply the mandatory factors listed in § 3621(b) to those inmates. This failure to consider the five statutory factors when considering eligibility for placement in or transfer to an RRC violates Congress’s clear intent that each of these factors be applied in making inmate transfer or placement determinations to “any available penal or correctional facility.” 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (emphasis added). [7] The Muniz opinion “emphasize[d] that were the regulations to leave little or no room for the opportunity of the individualized assessment implied by Congress, we would regard that as contrary to intent of the statute.” 517 F.3d at 39 n.17. However, that is precisely what the categorical BOP regulations accomplished - they left “no room for the operation of the individualized assessment” expressly mandated in § 3621(b). Id. We cannot agree with the First Circuit that the categorical failure to comply with unambiguously expressed Congressional intent can be rationalized away. Rather, we agree with the Second, Third, Eighth and Tenth Circuits’ conclusions that the BOP regulations cannot be reconciled with the unambiguous congressional intent expressed in § 3621(b). See Wedelstedt, 477 F.3d at 1162; Levine, 455 F.3d at 87; Fults, 442 F.3d at 1091; Woodall, 432 F.3d at 249. Accordingly, the regulations are invalid under Chevron.