In 1985, BOP’s general counsel issued a legal opinion interpreting the phrase “penal or correctional facility” in section 3621(b) as coincident with “institution or facility” in the former 18 U.S.C. §4082(a).In 1990, the statutory definition of “imprisonment” expanded to include home confinement when employed at the end of a prisoner’s sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §3624(c). Shortly after the enactment of §3624(c), which limits home confinement to the final 10 percent of a prisoner’s sentence, the BOP issued a written policy statement that announced its intention to “promote greater use of community corrections programs for low risk offenders.”

Barber v. Thomas, USSC No. 09-5201, 6/7/10Credit for good behavior for a federal prisoner is awarded after, rather than before, the fact under 18 U. S. C. §3624(b)(1).Of course, computation of federal sentence credit will ordinarily be a matter of indifference to the state practitioner, but the Court’s discussion of the rule of lenity may hold interest:Fourth, petitioners ask us to invoke the rule of lenity and construe §3624 (2006 ed.) in their favor, that is, in a way that will maximize the amount of available good time credit. We may assume for present purposes that §3624(b) can be construed as imposing a criminal penalty.

Mont v. United States, USSC No. 17-8995, June 3, 2019, affirmingUnited States v. Mont, 723 Fed. Appx. 325 (6th Cir. 2018); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), the period of supervised release imposed as part of a federal sentence is “tolled” during “any period the person is imprisoned in connection with a conviction for a crime….” In a decision of interest to federal practitioners, the Supreme Court holds that the period the person is imprisoned includes pretrial custody in a case that is later credited toward the sentence imposed for a new conviction.

He filed under 2241, claiming that the BOP's regulations impermissibly restricted the discretion Congress gave the BOP in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) to consider transferring him to a CCC prior to the last ten percent of his sentence.The 10th finds that § 3621(b) unambiguously directs the BOP to place an inmate in any facility, after it has considered 5 factors enumerated in the statute. It does not conflict with 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c), the statute that directs the BOP to “assure” that a prisoner spends the last 10% of his term, but not to more than six months, “under conditions that will afford the prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for his re-entry into the community.” § 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” under § 3621(b).

Even disqualified inmates, however, can still earn other benefits for successfully completing recidivism reduction programs, such as increased privileges (commissary, visiting and telephone) for participation in EBRR Programs or PAs, as authorized by the Bureau of Prisons.Other Potential Mechanisms for Early ReleaseInmates and family members should also be aware of other potential mechanisms to be released from prison early. Those include requests to the Warden pursuant to the CARES Act, Compassionate Release and 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2).[View source.]

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the court’s jurisdiction, finding that Mont’s supervised-release period was tolled while he was in pretrial detention in state custody. Today, the Court affirmed, concluding that under the statute governing supervised release, 18 U.S.C. §3624, if the court’s later imposed sentence credits the period of pretrial detention as time served for the new offense, then the pretrial detention also tolls the supervised-release period. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Ginsburg, Alito, and Kavanaugh.The Court’s decision is available here.Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the following three cases:Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, No. 18-1165: Whether the “more harm than good” pleading standard established in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014), to state a claim under ERISA for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence based on inside information, can be satisfied by generalized allegations that the harm of an inevitable disclosure of an alleged fraud generally increases over time.

Gonzalez v. State, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 8896 (Fla. 1st DCA June 22, 2018).Defendant has applied under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1) for recommendation for early placement in community confinement. “In his official capacity as a police officer, whose duty is to ‘protect and serve’ the public, defendant instead violated the trust of the very individuals he swore to protect and serve.”

Today federal prisoners serve 87 percent of their maximum sentence. That’s because 18 U.S.C.§ 3624(b) allows federal inmates serving sentences of more than one year to receive only 47 days of goodtime credit beginning at the end of their first year of incarceration.Mandatory Supervised ReleaseNot only did the SRA eliminate federal parole, it replaced it with a beast known as “supervised release.”

In this regard, please be aware (a) that Butner is no longer a facility designed to house sex offenders; (b) BOP no longer offers RDAP for native Spanish speakers – all classes are in English; and (c) the intensive confinement center (boot camp) program has been abolished and (d) FCI Waseca, Minnesota is now a female facility. A year and a day sentence results in an inmate’s serving approximately 47 days less than he would serve on a 12-month sentence because the 12-month sentence does not provide for good conduct time (see 18 U.S.C. §3624(b)(1)). Generally, non-United States citizens are ineligible for minimum-security (federal prison camp) placement and, in fact, are housed in contract facilities operated by private companies.

Second, failure to participate and make satisfactory progress in the adult literacy program can prevent an inmate from receiving the maximum allowable good time credit. See 18 U.S.C. 3624(b)(1).Next, outstanding criminal cases, detainers, or warrants can increase a person’s security score.