I'm looking for inmates that were promised 5 or 6 months CCC placement - preferably in writing (team sheet, progress report, etc.) and have now been told that they would be limited to 10%.

Now, the tough part. They must have a sentence SHORTER than 60 months and have at least 8 months remaining in their sentence (expiration via GCT release).

If you know of anyone so situated, please PM or email me.

OK, I know that this situation exists Bureau-wide. That is why we are acting on these cases. The Program Statement has not been changed, merely the practice.

NO I do not know of any inmate that this has happened too.
Scary though cause my Man is up for half way house 6 months placement. So we will see once the time gets shorter to his date. I pray that doesn’t happen.

I'm sure there are many out there. I really need a few in each Circuit.

Since the Bureau has changed its practice - and NOT the policy, these interests may be able to be protected.

OK, I've got four with strong facts. Any more takers?

Make that three with strong facts and one with a sympathetic story and decent facts.

I may know of someone at my husbands camp..I am going to give him your number when i visit this weekend.

I still need inmates in this situation in several circuits.

Perhaps after a weekend of visiting, more will surface.

I'm looking for inmates that were promised 5 or 6 months CCC placement - preferably in writing (team sheet, progress report, etc.) and have now been told that they would be limited to 10%.

Now, the tough part. They must have a sentence SHORTER than 60 months and have at least 8 months remaining in their sentence (expiration via GCT release).

After this weekend's round of visiting, I'm sure some more such situations will surface.

Thanks for the info. Yes, I am still "collecting" these situations. Judging from the questions we got yesterday at our argument in the 2nd Circuit, the CCC policies are NOT settled in any way.

Look for quite a bit of controversy within the next few months as these practices are continually revised.

The "front end" direct designation cases seem to be mostly disappearing, while the "back-end" cases - less than 6 months - are increasing substantially.

What does one do when the FPC case manager and counselor will not get Halfway House paperwork started. They never called hubby down to do so so he went himself (has a little more than 4 mos until eligible) The secretary told him it should have been started 2 mos ago, he asked his counselor who literally said "I am too busy to worry about it, go away" When he asked his case manager, he said "don't worry about it"

This is a proper use of the Administrative Remedy process. Just be careful to request something that is possible. For example, just to complain that something was not done when it should have been done, does not get it done in the future.

Regarding the use of administrative remedies, especially for this and other purposes, timing is everything. It is also very important to be specific and request something that is not only possible, but appropriately supported by policy and/or law.

FYI - The cases contemplated by this thread do NOT include ICC, RDAP or MINT placements as these are specifically left out of the Bureau's "new" CCC transfer practice.

Keep in mind that the current practice is the lesser of 10% of the total sentence or 6 months. The policy ia meaningful consideration for a substantial portion of the last six months of a sentence.

The policy (Program Statement_ has been in effect since 1998 and has NOT been altered since the practice was changed in December of last year (because of the OLC memo).

There seems to be some sort of step-up in CCC transfers just before the holidays. I just had two clients (in different Regions) have their dates moved up by a little more than 30 days.

Three more were told today that their CCC transfers were "moved up" to either Wednesday or Friday.

Howard

So they are letting some out to their CCC early??? Is that what I am understanding?

It seems as though they are being transferred earlier than the date upon they were lead to believe was accurate. It could be some gracious attempt at holiday cheer - or it could be that it was planned all along in order to keep evryone a bit off-balance.

It seems that the real reason is a soon to commence GAO study or audit on CCC contracting and utilization. Now, it begins to make sense.

Yes, this is the situation. The last GAO study showed that the Bureau was not effectively utilizing the CCC space that it had under contract.

It appears that they are looking to get a better opinion at this juncture.

Howard, If someone is to be in a half way house for six months is the 6 months written in stone or are there steps that can be taken to cut down the time?

As you might surmise, nothing within the Bureau's control or discretion is "written in stone." Their power is rooted in their almost absolute ability to change just about any situation. They do not want anyone to be "comfortable" with what they "have."

That said, yes they can, and often do, change CCC transfer dates.

Anybody experience an advanced CCC transfer date?

Within the last week or so, a judge in the SDNY declared the BOP's CCC placement practice (10% or 6 months whichever is less) to be unlawful.

Jamel Cato, an inmate at FCI Otisville, NY brought a "motion" - treated by the court as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241 - to challenge the Bureau's practice of limiting CCC placement to the lesser of 10% of the sentence imposed or 6 months. Mr. Cato is a pro se litigant.

Mr. Cato was sentenced before the OLC memo was released. He had challenged the change in practice on the grounds that it relied on an incorrect version of the underlying law, that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act and because it retroactively eliminated his eligibility for at least four months (more) of halfway house placement.

Judge Chin granted the writ and ordered the Bureau consider whether to transfer Mr. Cato to a CCC under the policy in effect prior to the OLC memo.

Jamal H. Cato v. Frederick Menifee, Warden, FCI Otisville
2003 WL 22725524 (S.D.N.Y.) November 20, 2003

Regarding the Cato case, there is currently no link to the full opinion, although it is available on WestLaw. My subscription prohibits me disseminating their proprietary format. Once the opinion is generally available, I'll post a link.

Although this decision arguably affects only those in the SD of NY, because of the exhaustive analysis, it is my opinion that it is useful in many cases, in many districts, especially where the plea and/or sentencing took place BEFORE 12/13/2002.

I intend upon exploiting the language in every possible case. This will be even better, once our 2nd Circuit case is deciside and (hopefully) published, as it will certainly be the first time that a Court of Appeal has gotten the issue before it becames moot.

Now there seem to be quite a bit of advancement of dates (ccc Transfers) going on in just about all Regions. People who have been told that they were going to a CCC in January are being advanced to just before Christmas.

I've gotten several calls this week about this. Also, a number of CCCs are speeding up there home confinement submissions as well.

So far this week, I've heard of four additional advanced dates.

This is all very interesting Howard. It's curious to me why my boyfriend is being told by counselors within the institutions that he may be eligible for 120 days halfway house placement if in fact BOP's "practice" is to allow 10% of the sentence. I am still hopeful!

Curious...how advanced are these dates that you are referring to Howard? Days, weeks, months??

Weeks for the most part. The biggest being just over two months.

Howard O. Kieffer

People have been asking for the story behind the CCC utilization practice change. Since you may have heard bits and pieces, here is a more complete version:

I am intimately familiar with this issue and have been since it started unfolding in December of last year. In that regard, if you don't mind while I digress, I've decided to spend some time and touch on several areas that are all interconnected. I do not mean this to be a legal analysis - even though it may refer to various laws or rules, etc.

It is - if you are interested - an interesting story. Please feel free to print it out and send it to your husband or whomsoever, as long as you keep it all in context and with attribution. Otherwise, well - that is how rumors get going - especially within Bureau facilities. You understand.

It all started with a memo from the Dept. of Justice's "Office of Legal Counsel." This is basically a bunch of lawyers in the Justice Department that - acting as lawyers - give advice to their "clients" who are Justice Department sub-components - like the Bureau of Prisons (BOP).

So, in this particular case, they wrote a memo that basically said that the BOP's past practice and policy of directly designating certain defendants to serve their entire sentences (usually fairly short sentences) in half-way houses (Community Corrections Centers - or CCCs) and of transferring others who were serving a sentence in a secure facility to a CCC for the last 6 months was unlawful.

This memo was almost immediately leaked to Michael Isikoff at NEWSWEEK (of Monica Lewinsky scandal fame) who wrote an article about how the government (Ashcroft, et al.) was cracking down on "white collar" criminals and how they were not going to be allowed (Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, etc.) to serves their (short) sentences in these cushy CCCs or in "Club Fed" - any longer. Of course, the whole thing was a fabrication and it really has never worked that way - but that is another story.

The first fallout came just before the holidays last year when some 272 CCC residents serving their sentences (who had more than 150 days remaining) received individual letters from various Community Correction Managers around the country (or more specifically, their designates, because everybody real was on vacation). These letters informed them that they were being redesignated to a prison camp, and that they would be moved "sometime after 30 days." They were also informed that they could appeal under the BOP's administrative remedy program. Meanwhile, and at about the same time, the BOP faxed a letter to all Judges (who, along with their staff were probably also on vacation), saying that they "could no longer honor recommendations that defendants serve their sentences in CCCs." It also said that it had been recently determined that this designation decision was outside the BOP's discretion.

The fallout was immediate. Within days, I had copies of 12 letters received by CCC inmates and more came in almost constantly. Myself, along with three others immediately formed a task force of sorts. In short order, we stooped most - not all - of these transfers. We did this through a variety of legal maneuvers throughout the country. Because each case had unique facts, there was no one way to accomplish what we needed to accomplish. I have participated directly or indirectly in dozens of these cases. We were very creative and in the end (for these 200 or so defendants) it mostly paid off. Although there were many decisions not written, let alone reported, there also were many - all over the country - that I was involved in that were written and/or reported.

The government appealed in several cases. However, since stays were issued and the sentences in question were mostly very short, the appeals became moot. We later learned that was the government's strategy, to let them become moot (when they lost), thus avoiding any real appellate review and - most importantly - a published opinion showing them to be wrong.

Next came a whole group of BOP inmates that had been "promised" 6 months in a CCC. After that came all the rest where "everybody" thought they would get 6 months, just because that is "how they've always done it." In between there were a few other factual scenarios. The least of which was one client who came to me and said that the judge recommended that he serve his sentence in a CCC. He was sentenced before the memo. Now they had "changed the rules after the game started." Since is was on bond - still - for reasons that are not important here - this case looked like one that could not become moot - no matter what the government did.

I argued that case in the United States Court of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit - in New York - just last month. I was assisted by one of the best appellate guys I know (and part of our original "task force"). The government was represented by two Assistant U.S. Attorneys. From this case, we may - I emphasize may - get the first written appellate opinion on this issue. This is important as it will effect more than one person - for the first time!

Just over the last few months we have been filing cases for currently confined inmates who had no reason to believe that they were even going to be considered for 6 months in a CCC. Now, it probably can't effect everyone, at least just yet (that will be the next stage), but we now have several Courts saying that the change in practice was unlawful for various reasons. It is also interesting to note that the BOP's policy (Program Statement) has not changed since at least 1998. That is why I make the constant distinction between practice and policy.

So, that is where we are now - sort of. I am open to more cases. I have developed good arguments that administrative remedies do NOT have to be exhausted in certain cases. This is important because remedies can delay going to Court by up to 5 months. This has allowed use to address cases where there simply would not other wise be enough time to get any relief. In other words, they would have become moot and would have been a waste of time.

Hopefully, I've provided the information that you were looking for and have not rambled on too much. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Howard O. Kieffer

Obviously, the above piece was wwritten for a particular person. While it is generally applicable to the entire CCC area and is now current, this is a rapidly changing area. In addition, the reference to "your husband" is not, in any way, meant to infer that thre are no women or unmarried inmates. It certainly was not meant as sexist either.

Howard O. Kieffer

It gets confusing when someone changes the thread names.

Thank you Howard for that very helpful historical perspective on CCC-Placement "practice". My boyfriend finally met with his counselor in Raybrook. He is eligible for the last 30 days of his 12-month sentence to CCC-Placement. Potentially 60 days if he completes a 40-hour drug rehab. class which he is already signed up for. Looks like we're in it for a bit longer. Thank you once again during this incredibly stressful waiting period!

Hi, Hieffer, I've talked to you before on this situation, Both my sons have a prd date for 12/3/04, but I've talked to both of them and they told me they have an outdate for halfway house July 22,04. One of my sons told me he has a couple of misdemeanors and he may not get to halfway house and may have to do his entire time where he's at, and yes they have the paper work on this situation. Is this the kind of situation you're looking for? They went in prison in September of this year, but has been incarcerated since 2001, they both received 51 months.

Please do not post case-specific information here. Yu'll also need to explain what you mean by a "prd date." Further, there is no term as "outdate halfway house," as one is transferred to a CCC, not released to a CCC. CCCs are custody.

Accordingly, much more specific information is required that should not be posted on this site.

PM me if you like.

Howard O. Kieffer

Keep in mind that one is not "released" to a CCC (half way house), one is transferred there. The limits of custody are extended into the community - hence the term "COMMUNITY" custody.

Howard O. Kieffer

The basic premise is that the Bureau's current practice cannot be retroactive, violates the APA and is generally unlawful. The relief possible is NOT confined to those who pled or were found guilty before December 13, 2002. I am just working with that group now. The "next" group: Those who pled after that date, will be taken up soon.

Mr Keifer,
My brother has been starting paper work for ,what they call "home Confinement". Two fella in his unit have been granted this, and a Federal Judge ordered these two to be released to HM. The BOP has NOT let them go........This is driving many there (prison) MAD ! The system continues to make good men MEAN, and will cause more problems !
I fail to understand the thinking behind the JOY of hurt and pain ! Especially at a medical facility ! Ice runs in the veins of these people and what they don't know, is that THEY will one day answer to the Highest Judge ! This is my peace of mind !
In trying to move on this home confinement program, my brother took a "shot" because they decided his restitution payments should go to $100./week, from $25./quarter ! Since our family can not pay - now he is !!!!!!!!!!!
We know this is Wrong, but we are told and my brother is told. NO LAWYER or ANYTHING can change the way they handle things ! They Truly are ABOVE the law !!!!!!!!! They feel all Att/Layers are a joke and enjoy watching people who can not afford to help thrir loved one also Suffer !
I do know these men who are spposed to get this home confinement program have a year left on their sentence. ONE fella was released a while back........the BOP does NOT want anyone to know about this so called program and when the woed gets out, everything comes to a halt ! The BOPs long spidery fingers reaches us ALL !
I received a call from Rep. Hasterts office on a prior problem, and will write to them again regarding the SICK-Evil games the BOP plays !!!!!!!! This happening in the USA is uncomprehensible !!!!!!!!!!!!!! The ONLY way to change this is for us ALL to work together !
FedCure and FPPP are moving mountains ! Please support them !

Have A Wonderful Holiday Season !
God Bless !

I have no idea what the previous poster is trying to communicate. FYI - I am on the Board of FPPP.

Mr Keifer,
I am trying to tell you that some pro-bono work would be a Wonderful thing ! Some people on this site have very little and are looking for help. You are VERY appreciated for your advice and help, but we all can't afford your fees.
I DO appreciate your words of wisdom and legal advice in the past, but can not afford to pay your fees. Please understand, we are Thankyou for you and what you do !
Have a Wonderful Christmas ! ...and follow your Heart !

I appreciate the compliments. Most of the work I do on BOP issues - and this is NOT an advertisement (it is in response to the last post) - is at very low cost. I will always listen and try to get someone going the right direction. Again - Moderators - not an advertisement. That is also one reason I serve on the FPPP Board (not an endorsement of that or any other group).

I depend upon other lawyers to pay for my BOP advocacy on THEIR behalf. For some reason, they get the cases with the $100K retainers - I don't.

God Bless You Sir ! I understand and appreciate what you do ! Unfortunately our leagal system is as bad as our health care system.............You are an exception, while others feed on the people who can not afford them, giving them all a bad name. We reap what we sow, and I am proud to say I have no regrets.
If everyone could do one good deed a day the world would be a better place..........sometimes it's just a smile for someone with a broken heart and spirit........

Merry Christmas To Everyone !

Thanks - again - for the compliments.

How can you argue when you don't have a license to practice law?


Thanks for the info. Yes, I am still "collecting" these situations. Judging from the questions we got yesterday at our argument in the 2nd Circuit, the CCC policies are NOT settled in any way.

Please explain to me why you are on the board at FPPP if you have no intent of endorsing them? If you aren't advertising why did you try to charge this woman?


I appreciate the compliments. Most of the work I do on BOP issues - and this is NOT an advertisement (it is in response to the last post) - is at very low cost. I will always listen and try to get someone going the right direction. Again - Moderators - not an advertisement. That is also one reason I serve on the FPPP Board (not an endorsement of that or any other group).

I depend upon other lawyers to pay for my BOP advocacy on THEIR behalf. For some reason, they get the cases with the $100K retainers - I don't.

PTO policies dictate that "other" groups or websites cannot be "endorsed" on PTO. Further, PTO does not allow "advertising" on posts. In order to keep the powers at PTO happy, I must conform with those rules, just like everyonelse. And therefore...my comment was posted for the benefit of those powers so they would know that I was not advertising or endorsing another organization.

Howard......

Pardon me for asking, but we did speak on the phone at one point and you went over some rates that you would charge on an issue we were looking into.

Are you a Lawyer who is "currently" license to practice law?

Diane