Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robertson v. Marques

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

May 8, 2019

Edward S. Robertson, Petitioner,
v.
R. Marques, Warden, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Steven E. Rau United States Magistrate Judge.

         The above-captioned case is before the undersigned on Robertson's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1).[1] This matter was referred for the resolution of pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1. For the reasons stated below, this Court recommends the petition be dismissed.

         I. BACKGROUND AND THE FIRST STEP ACT

         Robertson was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa and sentenced to 84 months imprisonment. (Decl. of Shannon Boldt, Ex. A, ECF No. 8). Robertson is presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota. (Boldt Decl. ¶ 3). Under current calculation methods, Robertson is projected to be released on July 16, 2019 due to earned good conduct time. (Boldt Decl., Ex. A).

         The First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018), was enacted on December 21, 2018. Relevant here, the First Step Act amends 18 U.S.C. § 3624. Pub. L. 115-391, § 102, 132 Stat. 5194, 5210. Previously, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) read:

[A] prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year other than a term of imprisonment for the duration of the prisoner's life, may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner's sentence, beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year of the prisoner's term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year of the term, subject to determination by the Bureau of Prisons that, during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations.

         18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). Interpreting this statute, the BOP calculated the 54 days for each year of imprisonment served, not for the term of imprisonment imposed. See Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474, 477-79 (2010) (explaining the BOP's calculation method). Under that method, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, prisoners effectively received 47 days of good time credit per year of imprisonment. See Id. at 479.

         The First Step Act amends § 3624(b)(1)

by striking “, beyond the time served, of up to 54 days at the end of each year of the prisoner's term of imprisonment, beginning at the end of the first year of the term, ” and inserting “of up to 54 days for each year of the prisoner's sentence imposed by the court . . .

Pub. L. 115-391, § 102(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5210. Thus, § 3624(b)(1) as amended by the First Step Act reads:

[A] prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year other than a term of imprisonment for the duration of the prisoner's life, may receive credit toward the service of the prisoner's sentence, of up to 54 days for each year of the prisoner's sentence imposed by the court, subject to determination by the Bureau of Prisons that, during that year, the prisoner has displayed exemplary compliance with institutional disciplinary regulations.

18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1) as amended by Pub. L. 115-391, § 102(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5210.

         The First Step Act is not immediately effective, however. Rather, the amendments “shall take effect beginning on the date that the Attorney General completes and releases the risk and needs assessment system . . .” Pub. L. 115-391, § 102(b)(2), 132 Stat. 5194, 5213. The “risk and needs assessment system” must be completed “[n]ot later than 210 days after the date of enactment.” Pub. L. 115-391, § 102(a), 132 Stat. 5194, 5196.

         Robertson filed the instant habeas petition challenging the delayed implementation of the First Step Act. (Pet., at 2, 6-7; ECF No. 2, at 7-14). Robertson asserts exhaustion of administrative remedies would be futile due to the time sensitive nature of his request for relief and a Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) bulletin that forecloses the issue he challenges. (Pet., at 3, 6-7; ECF No. 2, at 5-6; see ECF No. 2, Ex. A).[2] Robertson ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.