Opinion ID: 612705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bowers' prison record and prior parole hearings

Text: Bowers' prison record is relevant to the Parole Commission's mandatory parole determination of whether he has seriously or frequently violated institution rules and regulations or that there is a reasonable probability that he will commit any Federal, State, or local crime. 18 U.S.C. § 4206(d). In its October 6, 2005, original jurisdiction decision denying Bowers mandatory parole, the Parole Commission discussed Bowers' escape attempt and a letter Bowers sent to the victim's wife. We thus briefly describe these events as well as Bowers' initial mandatory parole hearing in which Bowers was granted mandatory parole. While serving his 1974 murder sentence, Bowers unsuccessfully attempted to escape from prison on August 1, 1979. In the early evening, while other inmates were in the recreation yard, Bowers and another inmate scaled an interior perimeter fence and were subsequently pinned down by tower gunfire between the inner and outer fences. The other inmate was hit twice by the gunfire and Bowers stopped his attempt to escape. The 1979 attempted escape created a very serious situation because a number of inmates were in the yard at the time. The investigator recommended that Bowers be transferred to another ... institution, [and] that any and all administrative sanctions be taken due to the seriousness of the situation. Bowers was convicted and sentenced to a 6-month consecutive prison term for attempted escape by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Bowers also sent a letter to Ranger Patrick's widow, Tomie Patrick Lee, in 1990. During one of Bowers' requests for discretionary parole, Lee informed the Parole Commission about the letter. Bowers admitted sending a letter to Lee, but explained that he did so because he received a certified receipt form indicating that a letter had been sent from the penitentiary to Lee in his name. According to a summary written by Hearing Examiner Samuel Robinson following a November 29, 1995, hearing, the return receipt was actually a victim-witness notification sent out by the Bureau of Prisons and erroneously given to [Bowers] at mail call. Robinson reviewed the letter and found that it appeared to be the type of letter that [Bowers] represented it to be in that it was an explanation of the circumstances regarding his receipt of a notice that a letter had been sent to her under his name. Robinson did not find this letter to be threatening or intimidating in any manner and would not find that th[e] letter would be... any basis for the denial of parole. Robinson did not recommend discretionary parole, however, and Bowers remained incarcerated. Although Bowers was not granted discretionary parole, he was scheduled for release on mandatory parole on April 7, 2004. On that day, however, Bowers was informed that he was precluded from parole based on his waiver of a 2002 Statutory Interim Hearing. Bowers filed an emergency petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [8] In an order dated October 26, 2004, the district court rejected the Parole Commission's waiver argument, granted Bowers' petition, and ordered the Parole Commission to immediately review Petitioner's file to determine whether or not a mandatory parole consideration hearing is necessary, and, if so, to hold the hearing within 60 days. Order Granting Petition at 7, Bowers v. Holder, No. 5:04-cv-208-Oc-10GRJ (M.D.Fla. Oct. 26, 2004). A mandatory parole hearing was held on December 21, 2004. Hearing Examiner Rob Haworth found Bowers was not likely to commit a future crime and noted, for the previous 15 years, Bowers has been an outstanding inmate and an asset to the operation of the prison. After conducting the hearing and a thorough review of the case, Haworth found Bowers to be an excellent candidate for mandatory parole. Haworth recommended Bowers be granted mandatory parole effective February 21, 2005. A second Hearing Examiner concurred with Haworth's recommendation on January 6, 2005, and Commissioner Mitchell, acting in his Regional Commissioner capacity, approved the panel's recommendation on January 13, 2005. The Attorney General did not request review of the Regional Commissioner's decision by the National Appeals Board pursuant to § 4215(c) of the Parole Act. See also 28 C.F.R. § 2.26(f).