No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TIM RAY SACORA, Petitioner, LARRY L. BEAMAN, Petitioner Intervenor,

-

TODD H. SONOBE, Petitioner Intervenor,

-

V.

JEFF E. THOMAS, Warden, Federal Prison Camp, Sheridan, Oregon, Respondent.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS

The petitioners, Tim Ray Sacora, Larry L. Beaman, and Todd Sonobe, class representatives of federal prisoners in Oregon who are subject to the Second Chance Act, request leave to file the attached petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit without prepayment of costs and to proceed informa pauperis pursuant to Rule 39.1 of this Court and 18 U.S.C.

3006A(d)(7). The petitioners were represented by counsel appointed under the

Criminal Justice Act in the District of Oregon and on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and therefore no affidavit is required. Respectfully submitted thi

R. Sady

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TIM RAY SACORA, Petitioner, LARRY L. BEAMAN, Petitioner Intervenor,

-

TODD H. SONOBE, Petitioner Intervenor,

-

V.

JEFF E. THOMAS, Warden, Federal Prison Camp, Sheridan, Oregon, Respondent.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Stephen R. Sady Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender 101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 326-2123 Attorney for Petitioners

QUESTION PRESENTED The Second Chance Act of 2007 increased the amount of time the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) can place prisoners in community corrections

halfway houses and home detention

from six to

twelve months. 18 U.S .C. 3624(c) (Supp. 1112009). The same statute required that, within 90 days of enactment, the BOP promulgate regulations to ensure that the length of community corrections would be of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community. 18 U.S.C.

3624(c)(6)(C). In this class action, federal prisoners established that

the BOP did not promulgate the required regulation and instead adopted informal rules that continued to effectively limit community corrections to six months. They also proved the BOP relied on no empirical evidence or rationale supporting the informal rules. The question presented is: Whether the BOP violated the Second Chance Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, thereby invalidating the informal rule limiting community corrections to six months absent extraordinary circumstances, where Congress specifically directed that the duration of community corrections be determined based on a regulation promulgated with notice-and-comment; Discovery established that the BOP promulgated no valid regulation and, under its informal rule, no class member received more that six months community corrections and no empirical evidence or rationale supported the six-month limitation; and The six month limitation contradicted Congresss doubling of available community corrections to twelve months and authorization of an incentive to participate in reentry programming for the maximum allowable period in a community confinement facility.

To this day, the BOP has not promulgated a regulation that provides guidance on the sufficient duration of community corrections that would provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Table of Authorities 1. 2. 3. 4. Opinions Below Jurisdictional Statement Constitutional, Statutory, And Regulatory Provisions Statement Of The Case Reasons For Granting The Writ The BOPs Violation Of Congresss Explicit Direction To Address The Sufficient Duration For Community Corrections Through Notice-And-Comment Rule-Making Forecloses Deference To The BOPs Informal Rule, Promulgated Without NoticeAnd-Comment, Limiting Community Corrections To Six Months Absent Extraordinary Circumstances The Ninth Circuit Failed To Follow This Courts Administrative Law Precedent By Ignoring The Extrinsic Evidence Demonstrating That The BOPs Internal Memoranda Was Based On Factual Errors And A Failure To Consider Relevant Factors 1. The Rationale For An Agencys Rule Must Come From The Agency Itself, Not The Court, And Cannot Be Based On Factual Errors The Agency Action Failed To Consider An Important Aspect Of The Problem The Court Erroneously Injected Statutory Error Into Its Decision iii 2 2 2 6 10

5.
A.

11

B.

13

14

2.

16 16

3. C.

The Court Should Grant Certiorari Because The Extraordinarily Important Separation Of Powers Is sues Affect An Extraordinary Number Of Federal Prisoners This Petition Is Time Sensitive Because The Agency Continues To Operate Under Its Informal Rules And Still Has Not Promulgated The Regulation, With Opportunity For Comment, Required By The Statute

18

D.

21

E.

The Present Case Provides An Ideal Vehicle For Review Of The Important And Urgent Issues Presented Conclusion

22 23

6.

Certificate of Service and Mailing

INDEX TO APPENDIX
District Court Opinion Ninth Circuit Opinion Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc 28 C.F.R. 001 035 047 048

570.22 553 and 706

Administrative Procedure Act excerpts, 5 U.S.C. Program Statement 7310.04 at page 8 April 14, 2008, memorandum November 14, 2008, memorandum BOP email

049 051 052 056 059

11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page

Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146 (2001) Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U.S. 482 (1947) Bennett v. Spear, 520U.S. 154 (1997) Bloate v. United States, 130 5. Ct. 1345 (2010) Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962) Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000) Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2009) F. C. C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 5. Ct. 1800 (2009) Federal Power Commission v. Texaco, Inc., 417 U.S. 380 (1974) Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) Kelsey v. Warden, F. C.I., El Reno, No. CV-10-1292-D, 2011 WL 873647 (W.D. Okia. Mar. 11,2011)

12

12

12

17

14

15

12, 15

20

19

16

8, 11

111

Krueger v. Martinez, 665 F. Supp. 2d 477 (M.D. Pa. 2009) Metcalf v. Davis, No., CV 10-00209-REB, 2011 WL 1134931 (D. Cob. Mar. 25, 2011) Miller v. Whitehead, 527 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2008) Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974) Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass ii v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) Muniz v. Sabol, 517 F.3d 29 (lstCir. 2008) Pierce v. Thomas, No. CV 08-709-MA, 2009 WL 2476606 (D. Or. Aug. 10, 2009), affirmed, 400 Fed. Appx. 259 (9th Cir. 2010) Raleigh & Gaston R. Co. v. Reid, 80 U.S. 269 (1871) Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180(9thCir. 2008) Rosario v. Scism, No. CV 10-2600, 2011 WL 398200 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2011) SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80(1943) SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947) Sacora v. Thomas, 628F.3d 1059 (9thCir. 2010) Sacora v. Thomas, CV 08-578-MA, 2009 WL 4639635 (D. Or. Dec. 3, 2009)

8, 13

10

12

14, 16

10

11

10,15

14

14

iv

Sass v. Thomas, No. CV 08-300-MA, 2009 WL 2230759 (D. Or. July 23, 2009),affirmed, 405 Fed. Appx. 202 (9th Cir. 2010) Sievers v. Berkebile, No. CV-10-360, 2011 WL 1642436 (S.D. W.Va. May 2, 2011) Skidmore v. Swift. & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944) Strong v. Schultz, 599F. Supp. 2d556 (D. N.J. 2009) Tanis v. Shartle, No. CV 10-2615, 2011 WL 1297183 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 5,2011) United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) Walker v. Copenhaver, No. C 09-04518, 2010 WL 604674 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2010) CONSTITUTION
U.S. Const. art. I, U.S. Const. art. II,

10, 11, 13, 23

8,13

11

8, ci. 18 1, ci. 1
.

2 2

FEDERAL STATUTES 5 U.S.C. 5 U.s.c.

553 (2006) 706 (2006)

4,8,15 4,13,20 22 9 3,5,6,8,9,10,15 passim 2

18 u.s.c. 18 u.s.c. 18 u.s.c. 18 U.S.C. 28 U.S.C.

3006A(d)(7) (2006) 3582(c) (2006) 3621 (2006) 3624(c) (Supp. III 2009) 1254(1) (2008)
V

42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 28 C.F.R. 28 c.F.R.

17501(a)(5) (Supp. III 2009) 17541(a)(2) (Supp. III 2009) 570.20 (2008) 570.22 (2008)
MISCELLANEOUS
.

17

4, 12, 17 8 4

Conf. Rep. to consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, 155 cong. Rec. H13631-03 BOP Program Statement 5100.08 BOP Program Statement 7310.04

13, 18 8 5, 8

R. Stewart & C. Sunstein, Public Programs and Private Rights, 95 Harv. L. Rev. 1193, 1248 (1982)

20

vi

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TIM RAY SACORA, Petitioner, LARRY L. BEAMAN, Petitioner Intervenor,

-

TODD H. SONOBE, Petitioner Intervenor,

-

V.

JEFF E. THOMAS, Warden, Federal Prison Camp, Sheridan, Oregon, Respondent.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

The petitioner, Tim Ray Sacora, and intervenors Larry L. Beaman and Todd H. Sonobe, as representatives of the certified class of Oregon federal prisoners who are subject to the Second Chance Act, respectfully request that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered on December 6, 2010, affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief.

1.

Opinions Below The District Court granted in part and denied in part habeas corpus relief in an unpublished

opinion on June 16, 2010 (Appendix 001). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief in a published opinion on December 6, 2010. Sacora v. Thomas, 628 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2010) (Appendix 035). The Ninth Circuit denied panel and en banc rehearing on February 15, 2011 (Appendix 047). 2. Jurisdictional Statement This Courts jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 3.

1254(1) (2008).

Constitutional, Statutory, And Regulatory Provisions The constitutional separation of powers at issue in this case derives from the first three

Articles of the Constitution, which divide the powers of the federal government among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Congress enacted the Second Chance Act (SCA) pursuant to its authority to enact all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. U.S. Const. art. I,

8, cl. 18. The

executive power is vested in the President, who must who must take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. U.S. Const. art. II,

1, ci. 1, and 3.

Prior to the SCA, the pre-release custody statute limited community corrections during service of the term of imprisonment to six months: (c) Pre-release custody. 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 prisoners re-entry into the community. The authority

provided by this subsection may be used to place a prisoner in home confinement. The United States Probation System shall, to the extent practicable, offer assistance to a prisoner during such pre-release custody. 18 U.S.C.

3624 (repealed 2008). The SCA doubled the period of community corrections to twelve

months halfway house placement, continuing the limitation on home detention to the last six months, or ten percent, of the sentence: (1) In general. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of that term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the reentry of that prisoner into the community. Such conditions may include a community correctional facility.

(2) Home confinement authority. The authority under this subsection may be used to place a prisoner in home confinement for the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner or 6 months.

18 U.S.C.

3624(c) (Supp. III 2009).

The SCA also included the requirement that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) issue implementing regulations within 90 days that would include direction regarding the sufficient duration of community corrections placements: The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall issue regulations pursuant to this subsection not later than 90 days after enactment of the Second Chance Act of 2007, which shall ensure that placement in a community correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons is

(A) (B) (C)

conducted in a manner consistent with section 362 1(b) of this title; determined on an individual basis; and of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.

18 U.S.C.

3624(c)(6). The BOP issued a regulation, without notice-and-comment, that simply 570.22 (Appendix 048). The relevant procedures for

restated the statutes words. 28 c.F.R.

promulgation of regulations, including notice-and-comment, are set out in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.

553 (b) and 706, copies of which are attached at Appendix 049.

In a separate section of the SCA, congress directed that the Attorney General and the BOP, subject to available appropriations, establish a federal prisoner reentry initiative that included authorization for the BOP to create incentives, including the maximum allowable period in a community confinement facility, 42 U.S.C.

17541(a)(2)(A) (Supp. III 2009), and to change its

former approach by referring to the need to modify BOP procedures and policies to enhance implementation of reentry programs and improve transition to the community. 42 U.S.C.

17541(c).
In addition to required consideration of community corrections at the end of the sentence, the BOP has discretionary authority to designate a halfway house at any time during the sentence as a penal or correctional facility: (b) Place of imprisonment. The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoners 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 and whether within or without the judicial district in which the person was convicted, that the Bureau determines to be appropriate and suitable, considering

(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 (2006). The SCA requires that pre-release placement decisions be individualized, not categorical, using the factors enumerated in 3621(b) to designate or transfer prisoners to appropriate penal or correctional facilities

which include halfway houses.

18 U.S.C.

3624(c)(6)(A).
Prior to the SCA, the Bs program statements foreclosed placements in community corrections greater than six months absent extraordinary and compelling reasons. Program Statement 7310.04 at 8 (Dec. 16, 1998) (Appendix 051). Five days after the SCA s effective date, the BOP perpetuated that policy by continuing the program statements restriction through an informal memorandum limiting pre-release placement to only six months, absent extraordinary circumstances, with required approval from both the Warden and the Regional Director for any deviation. Appendix 052. The April 14th Memorandum specifically incorporated, with minor adjustments, the 1998 Program Statement, only ordering staff to disregard sections of the 1998 Program Statement that quoted from the repealed 3624(c), and to substitute the timeline to review halfway house placement decisions to be made in advance of the final year of imprisonment (the final determination to be made no later than 17 to 19 months, instead of 11 to 13 months, prior to release). Id. The April 14th Memorandum left unchanged the program statements language
1

The full Program Statement is available at http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/73 10_004.pdf.

creating a six-month norm absent extraordinary and compelling reasons, and stated that Bureau experience reflects inmates pre-release [halfway house] needs can usually be accommodated by a placement of six months or less. Appendix 055. In November 2008, the BOP issued a second informal memorandum establishing criteria for transfer to community corrections under its general designation authority under 3621(b) to transfer prisoners to community corrections at any time during the term of imprisonment, again limiting community placements to six months absent exceptional circumstances. Appendix 056. 4. Statement Of The Case By granting certiorari, the Court will decide an issue that affects the time spent in prison by over 150,000 federal prisoners. In doing so, the Court will bring an end to the agencys defiance of an unequivocal congressional directive

that the time in community corrections be addressed

through notice-and-comment rule-making

that continues to this moment. At the same time, the

Court will resolve important separation of powers and administrative law issues that can occur in any context: whether an agency can ignore explicit congressional directives to implement a program through notice-and-comment rule-making and, instead, perpetuate prior practice through informal memoranda; and whether such informally promulgated rules are valid even where no empirical evidence or rationale supports the informal rule. This case likely presents the only opportunity for this Court to determine the lawfulness of the BOPs implementation of the SCA and to bring an end to the agencys unconstitutional refusal to adhere to the statutes plain text. With strong bipartisan support, President George W. Bush signed the SCA on April 9, 2008. The new legislation doubled from six to twelve months the duration of time prisoners could spend in community corrections placements at the end of their terms of imprisonment, and reaffirmed B OP 6

authority to transfer prisoners to community corrections at any time. 18 U.S.C.

3624(c). Despite

Congresss explicit direction that the BOP issue regulations pursuant to this subsection not later than 90 days after enactment facility [is]
. . .
. . .

which shall ensure that placement in a community correctional

of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelthood of successful reintegration

into the community, 18 U.S.C.

3624(c)(6)(C), no such regulations were forthcoming. Instead,

as the discovery in this case proved, the BOP violated the statute on promulgating the regulations in three ways: the BOP delayed issuance of a regulation until over 100 days after the congressional deadline; the regulation was invalid because the BOP violated the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA; and the invalid regulation itself said nothing to provide guidance regarding the optimal duration of community corrections. The federal prisoners continued to be limited to the former sixmonths rule by informally promulgated memoranda. With few exceptions, prisoners could not obtain review of the validity of the B OPs informal SCA rules. Nationwide, prisoners who filed for habeas corpus relief before they were considered 2 as soon for community corrections placements had their cases dismissed because they were not ripe; as a community corrections placement was designated, no matter how delayed the placement, the 3 In two districts, the B OPs six-month norm was held to violate the cases were dismissed as moot.

See, e.g., Sievers v. Berkebile, No. CV-10-360, 2011 WL 1642436, at *6 (5.D.W.Va. May 2, 2011); Rosario v. Scism, No. CV 10-2600, 2011 WL 398200, at *4 (M.D.Pa. Jan. 20, 2011); Walker v. Copenhaver, No. C 09-045 18, 2010 WL604674, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19,2010); Sass v. Thomas, No. CV 08-300-MA, 2009 WL 2230759, at *46 (D. Or. July 23, 2009),affirmed, 405 Fed. Appx. 202 (9th Cir. 2010).
2

See, e.g., Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508, 513 (6th Cir. 2009); Pierce v. Thomas, No. CV 08709-MA, 2009 WL 2476606, at *2 (D. Or. Aug. 10, 2009), affirmed, 400 Fed. Appx. 259 (9th Cir. 2010); Tanis v. Shartle, No. CV 10-2615, 2011 WL 1297183, at *2 (N.D.Ohio, Apr. 5, 2011); Metcalfv. Davis, No. CV 10-00209-REB, 2011 WL 1134931, at *2 (D.Colo. Mar. 25,2011); Kelsey v. Warden, F. C.I., El Reno, No. CV-10-1292-D, 2011 WL 873647, at *2 (W.D.Okla. Mar. 11,2011). 7

plain meaning of the SCA, but the BOP did not appeal, leaving those decisions applicable only to the petitioners in those two cases. Krueger v. Martinez, 665 F. Supp. 2d 477, 483 (M.D. Pa. 2009); Strong v. Schultz, 599 F. Supp. 2d 556, 563 (D. N.J. 2009). Finally, Tim Sacora filed a motion to act as a class representative for prisoners at the Sheridan federal prison who were subject to the BOPs six-month rule, which along with the intervention of two other prisoners, resulted in the certification of the following class to litigate in this case: All federal prisoners serving sentences in the District of Oregon who have been denied or will be denied community corrections placement in excess of six months under 18 U.S.C. 3624(c) and 18 U.S.C. 362 1(b), pursuant to the Bureau of Prisons April 14, 2008, memorandum, the Bureau of Prisons November 14, 2008, memorandum, Program Statement 7310.04, Program Statement 5100.08 and 28 C.F.R. 570.20, et seq. Sacora v. Thomas, 2009 WL 4639635, *12 (D. Or. Dec. 3, 2009) (granting class certification), amended, CV 08-578-MA, Order (D. Or. filed Jan. 25,2010) (adjusting class to include intervenors). Through both public records and extensive discovery, the class representatives established that the B OP never properly promulgated a valid regulation, or any regulation, regarding the duration of community corrections, and had no basis for retaining the old six month norm. The BOP failed to promulgate its regulation within the 90 days provided, then

over 100 days too late

did so

without the required notice-and-comment. The regulation merely parroted the statute and provided no explication of sufficient duration or greatest likelihood of success. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 257 (2006) (the near-equivalence of the statute and regulation belies agencys argument for deference). In the district court, the class representatives prevailed on their contention that the regulation was invalid under 553 of the APA, a decision the BOP did not appeal. Appendix 025 n.9 ([T]he October regulations failed to comport with the notice and comment provisions of 553(b).).

Since then, the BOP has not promulgated another regulation. Instead, the BOP issued another informal memoranda on June 24, 2010, reiterating the six-month rule with modifications eliminating the requirement that the regional director approve placements longer than six months, and adding that inmates should be considered for a minimum 90-day placement. The June 2010 Memorandum did not rescind the 1998 program statement, which provides that placements greater than 180 days is highly unusual, and only possible with extraordinary justification. Appendix 051 (emphasis added). Despite the BOP s acknowledged failure to comply with the congressional directive to address length of community corrections by notice-and-comment regulation, the district court upheld the informal rule by deferring to the agencys informal implementation of the statute. On appeal, the class representatives contended that the informal rule violated the SCA and the APA. The SCA was not properly implemented where not a single Sheridan inmate received more than six months community corrections despite the decision by Congress to double the available community corrections to twelve months, especially where the extraordinary exception was indistinguishable 4 Where Congress from the standard under 3621(b) for designations to a halfway house at anytime. prescribed the manner of implementing the statute by notice-and-comment rulemaking, informal rules were unauthorized and invalid. The informal rules also violated the APA because no valid empirical evidence supported the rules: the discovery established that no studies supported the contention that greater than six month placements were counter-productive, and the BOP could not

Further, the extraordinary and compelling statutory standard for BOP motions for resentencing 4 under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) (2006) appears indistinguishable from the informal rules extraordinary justification standard.

possibly have experience with greater than six month placements because, prior to the SCA, such placements were almost unknown under 5 3621(b).

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district courts deference to the informal rules. The court failed to address whether the congressional instruction regarding rules made any difference, instead conferring Skidmore deference on the BOPs informal administration of 18 U.S.C.

362 1(b) and

6 The court did not address the factual development in discovery that established that the 3624(c). six-month rule was based on a mistaken belief regarding the social science. The court also treated the rule as non-substantive despite the proof that, by application of the informal rule, no class member received a community corrections placement greater than six months. 5. Reasons For Granting The Writ The Court should grant certiorari to address extraordinarily important issues involving the actual time behind bars for most United States citizen federal prisoners. With the exception of foreign nationals, almost all of the 214,721 federal prisoners are eligible for community corrections under the SCA (about 26% of federal prisoners are aliens with immigration holds), with about 45,000 transferred to the community each year. The separation of powers questions are fundamental: can the Executive Branch simply ignore the statutory directive that a regulation be promulgated, covering the precise subject matter that the agency addresses in informal rules? And if the agency fails to follow statutory instruction on promulgation of the rules, must the Judiciary consider the factual development in the litigation or can it simply defer to invocation of agency experience

Compare Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180, 1184 (9th Cir. 2008), with Muniz v. Sabol, 517 F.3d 29, 35 (1st Cir. 2008), and Miller v. Whitehead, 527 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir. 2008).
6

Skidmore v. Swift. & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944). 10

under Skidmore? The answers to these questions, are essential to the rights of many thousands of federal prisoners to receive fair consideration of the benefits of community placements under the SCA. The basic rule of law is also at issue where the Executive Branch agency refuses to execute the law as written, essentially legislating the shall of the statute requiring promulgation of a regulation into a maybe. A. The BOPs Violation Of Congresss Explicit Direction To Address The Sufficient Duration For Community Corrections Through Notice-And-Comment Rule-Making Forecloses Deference To The BOPs Informal Rule, Promulgated Without Notice-And-Comment, Limiting Community Corrections To Six Months Absent Extraordinary Circumstances.

The Ninth Circuit overlooked a critical difference between this case and most other cases involving agency rule-making: Congress expressly directed the BOP to engage in

notice-and-comment rule-making by promulgating a regulation, and the BOP failed to follow that statutory directive. The BOP had no discretion except to engage in notice-and-comment nilemaking, so its failure to do so should render its informal SCA rules void. See Gonzales, 546 U.s. at 258 (To begin with, the rule must be promulgated pursuant to authority Congress has delegated to the official.) (citing United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 226-27 (2001)). Congress not only did not give the BOP discretion to adopt alternative means to implement the SCA, but such informal rules violate the plain meaning of the statute. Raleigh & Gaston R. Co. v. Reid 80 U.s. 269, 270 (1871) (When a statute limits a thing to be done in a particular mode, it includes a negative of any other mode.). Although the petitioners argued the point throughout the litigation, the Ninth Circuit did not address the claim that Congresss directive that a regulation be promulgated foreclosed an informal rule on precisely the same subject.

11

The SCA provides that the BOP shall implement the reforms to the pre-release community placement statute through the formal procedures provided under the APA. 18 U.S.C.

3624(c)(6)

(The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall issue regulations regarding the sufficient duration of community corrections) (emphasis added)). [D]iscretion as to the substance of the ultimate decision does not confer discretion to ignore the required procedures of decisionmaking. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 172 (1997). When congress specifies an obligation and uses the word shall, this denomination usually connotes a mandatory command. Ala. v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146, 153 (2001) (citing Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U.5. 482,485 (1947)). The agencys power to make rules that affect substantial individual rights and obligations carries with it the responsibility not only to remain consistent with the governing legislation, but also to employ procedures that conform to the law. Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 232 (1974) (emphasis added) (citations omitted). [T]he promulgation of [the] regulations must conform with any procedural requirements imposed by Congress because agency discretion is limited not only by substantive, statutory grants of authority, but also by the procedural requirements which assure fairness and mature consideration of rules of general application. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 303 (1979) (citations omitted). The SCA explicitly refers to the need for reentry policies to be empirically based. 42 U.S.C.

1754 1(d). Congresss intention that the BOP engage in notice-and-comment rule-making
effectuates this approach by giving the public and interested organizations the opportunity to provide input regarding the duration of community corrections. See Chrysler Corp., 441 U.S. at 316 (In enacting the APA, Congress made a judgment that notions of fairness and informed administrative decisionmaking require that agency decisions be made only after affording interested persons notice 12

and an opportunity to comment.); see also Conf. Rep. to Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, 155 Cong. Rec. H13631-03, *H13888 (daily ed. Dec. 8, 2009) (directing the BOP to consult with the public and experts regarding reentry issues). Nevertheless, the BOP issued the informal memoranda with no support in best practices, no social science studies, and no articulated rationale with any support in the literature. As two district courts found, aside from procedural invalidity, the six-month rule appears to be substantively inconsistent with the doubling of available community corrections placements. Krueger, 665 F. Supp. 2d at 483; Strong, 599 F. Supp. 2d at 562. Because the SCA rules were promulgated not in accordance with law, 5 U.S.C. without observance of procedure required by law,

706(2)(A) (2006), and

706(2)(D), the Ninth Circuits analysis is

fatally defective in giving no effect to the BOP s violation of the explicit congressional directive regarding the implementation of the SCA. B. The Ninth Circuit Failed To Follow This Courts Administrative Law Precedent By Ignoring The Extrinsic Evidence Demonstrating That The BOPs Internal Memoranda Was Based On Factual Errors And Failure To Consider Relevant Factors.

The specific statutory instruction requiring a regulation should alone foreclose Skidmore deference for informal rules covering the identical question. In giving Skidmore deference to the six month rule, the Ninth Circuit also disregarded the specific factual development during the litigation before the district court, instead relying on the BOPs nearly 10 years of experience in placing inmates in [halfway houses], at least with respect to periods of six months or less. Appendix 045. Not only is this reliance unsupported by empirical evidence, the rationale is supplied by the court, not the agency. The Ninth Circuits approach violates this Courts precedent in several ways.

13

1.

TheRationaleForAnAgencysRuleMust Come From TheAgency Itself Not The Couri, And Cannot Be Based On Factual Errors.

When a rule is challenged under 706 of the APA, this Court requires that only the rationales articulated by the agency itself be considered. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.k. 80, 87 (1943); SEC
v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196(1947); Burlington TruckLines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S.

156, 168 (1962). The agency is required to examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice
made. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.5. 29, 41(1983). The

agency must cogently explain why it has exercised its discretion in a given manner, and the agencys explanation must be sufficient to enable a reviewing court to conclude that the [agencys action] was the product of reasoned decision making. State Farm, 463 U.s. at 48-49, 52. In the present case, the BOP did not provide any empirical support to establish that a sixmonth general limit on community corrections was appropriate. In fact, the evidence presented before the district court established beyond question that the six-month figure was based on erroneous assumptions. Most glaringly, the evidence disclosed that the Director of the BOP erroneously believed there were studies supporting the rule, but the BOP s own records smoking gun email

in a

established that no such studies exist:

The Director claimed that our research that weve done for many years reflects that many offenders who spend more than six months in a halfway house tend to do worse rather than better. The six months seems to be a limit for most of the folks, at which time if they go much beyond that, they tend to fail more often than offenders that serve up to six months. The BOP s research department could not back up the Directors claim, stating I am trying to find out if there is any data to substantiate the length of time in a halfway house placement is optimally x number of months. That is, was the 6-month period literally one of tradition, or was there some data-driven or empirical basis for that time frame? Ive
. . .

14

done a lot of searching of the literature, but so far have not found anything to confirm that the 6-months was empirically based. 7 The Ninth Circuits reliance on experience disregarded the actual facts of the administrative process, especially where the BOP had virtually no experience of using community corrections for more than six months due to the statutory prohibition and its own practices. 8 The Ninth Circuit also misapplied this Courts precedent on what constitutes a substantive or legislative rule that must be promulgated through notice and comment rule-making. Chrysler Corp., 441 U.S. at 302 n.3 1 (substantive rules have the force and effect of law, while interpretive rules and general statements of policy do not have the force and effect of law.); see also Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 588 (2000) (To defer to the agencys position would be to permit the agency, under the guise of interpreting a regulation, to create de facto a new regulation.). Because the class consisted only of prisoners at FCI Sheridan, the proof was

irrefutable that the informal rules created a binding norm with the force of law: under the SCA, not a single Sheridan prisoner received more than six months of community confinement. Although the Ninth Circuit pointed to sparse placements in other regions, the class representatives established that, at least in the prison where they served their sentences, the Courts functional analysis under the APA would require that the rule be deemed substantive as establishing a binding norm limiting the exercise of agency discretion. Such rules are invalid unless promulgated with notice-and-comment under 553 of the APA, independent of the SCA s requirement of notice-and-comment rule-making. The full email is attached as Appendix 059. The BOP followed an Office of Legal Counsel memorandum that barred even discretionary placements under 3621(b) for much of the previous ten years referenced in the Ninth Circuits opinion. See Rodriguez, 541 F.3d at 1181-83 (reviewing the litigation history regarding the BOPs categorical bar on 3621(b) community corrections placements of more than six months). 15
8

2.

TheAgencyAction Failed To ConsiderAn ImportantAspect OfThe Problem.

In addition to the erroneous predicate and absence of articulated rationale, the BOP informal rule is arbitrary and capricious because the agency entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43. The only rationale for the six-month rule proffered by the BOP related to the supposed optimum time in a halfway house. The class representatives consistently asserted that, even if the B OPs erroneous belief regarding halfway house studies had not been debunked, the BOP still failed to consider an essential point: even with a six-month limit on the duration of halfway house placements, earlier placement would allow for up to six months of additional time in home detention under

3624(c)(2). The evidence included acknowledgment

by a BOP official that the SCA permitted such placements, which would save thousands of dollars (because supervision of home detention costs $3,621.64 per year, while incarcerations runs about $25,000 per year). More importantly for the class members, earlier community corrections would enable them to accelerate their reintegration into the community, through family reunification, work, treatment, and other appropriate community-based programming. The failure to consider this aspect of the SCA alone should have invalidated the informal (and irrational) six-month rule.
3. The Court Erroneously Injected Statutory Error Into Its Decision.

The Ninth Circuit erroneously cited to a part of the SCA upon which the BOP placed no reliance in the administrative record (or in its briefing). See Fed. Power Comm n v. Texaco, Inc., 417 U.S. 380, 397 (1974) (post hoc rationalizations cannot substitute for the agencys own articulation of the basis for the decision in the administrative record)). In a general purpose provision relating to time that state and federal prisoners spend in transitional medical-type facilities, Congress very sensibly directed such transitional treatment [should be] for as short of a

16

period as practicable. 42 U.S.C.

17501(a)(5) (Supp. 1112009). The statement in full demonstrates

that the statute is aimed at medical-type facilities: (5) to assist offenders reentering the community from incarceration to establish a selfsustaining and law-abiding life by providing sufficient transitional services for as short of a period as practicable, not to exceed one year, unless a longer period is specifically determined to be necessary by a medical or other appropriate treatment professional.... 42 U.S.C.

17501(a)(5) (emphasis added). Reference to a medical or other appropriate treatment

professional clearly indicates that the transitional services refer to inpatient or similar treatment, not halfway house placements. Of course, restriction in medical-type facilities should be only as long as needed. The Ninth Circuit took this fragment to find that Congress intended to minimize community corrections. Appendix 042 n.7. Not only did the administrative record include no such

interpretation, the structure of the statute is entirely the opposite from minimizing community corrections. Congress would not double the available time at the same time as minimizing halfway house time without explanation. Further, the SCA directed Congress to provide for the maximum allowable period in a community confinement facility as an incentive to participate in reentry programming. 42 U.S.C.

17541(a)(2)(A). Congress further demonstrated the need for increased

community corrections by requiring the BOP to ensure that prisoners spend a sufficient time in community corrections to provide the greatest likeithood of successful reintegration into the community. 18 U.S.C.

3624(c)(6)(C). Most obviously, by doubling the time in community

corrections from six to twelve months, Congress intended that community corrections be utilized for a longer time period. The single reference, in a section involving state prisoners and medical needs, does not inform the scope of the sections dedicated specifically to federal prisoners. See Bloate v. 17

United States, 130 S. Ct. 1345, 1354(2010) (the specific controls the general) (citing Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395, 407 (1991)). Congresss intent that placements be longer is reinforced by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010, which provides: Because BOP has indicated that approximately $75,000,000 is required to implement fully its Second Chance Act responsibilities, the conferees expect the Department to propose significant additional funding for this purpose in the fiscal year 2011 budget request, including significant additional funding for the enhanced use of Residential Reentry Centers (RRC) as part of a comprehensive prisoner reentry strategy. The conferees also urge the BOP to make appropriate use of home confinement when considering how to provide reentering offenders with up to 12 months in community corrections. 155 CoNG. REC. at 1113887. Congress clearly expressed its continued intention that the BOP fully use its authority to place federal prisoners in the community for as long a period as appropriate to ensure the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration

including greater utilization of halfway

houses and home confinement. Congress has indicated that funding considerations will not be tolerated as an excuse for failing to implement fully BOPs responsibilities under the SCA. The Ninth Circuits reliance on a general purpose statement, addressing state prisoners on a different question, to condone the BOP s failure to change its prior practice, cannot stand in light of the statutory instruction to enhance and to improve utilization of community corrections for federal prisoners. C. The Court Should Grant Certiorari Because The Extraordinarily Important Separation Of Powers Issues Affect An Extraordinary Number Of Federal Prisoners.

The SCA is one of the most important legislative initiatives regarding criminal justice policy in recent years. For the first time in decades, Congress confronted the reality that almost all

18

prisoners return to the community and that over-incarceration behind prison walls can be reduced through community placements. The SCAs amendment of 3624(c) rests on three assumptions apparent from the legislation: the amount of available time in community corrections should be doubled; the likelihood of successful reentry will be enhanced by earlier reintegration through family reunification, employment, and treatment in the community; and the costs of incarceration can be ameliorated by greater utilization of community resources for those determined not to create substantial risks in the community. All these legislative goals, which are aimed at the over 150,000 federal prisoners who are eligible for community placements, are thwarted by the informal rule that perpetuates the pre-SCA policy of community corrections in excess of six months only in extraordinary circumstances. Under well-established precedent of this Court, the BOPs refusal to follow Congresss direction implicates the most basic structural integrity of the federal system of governance. To implement the separation of powers, the fundamental premise of agency power lies in the authorizing statutes: If agencies were permitted unbridled discretion, their actions might violate important constitutional principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. To that end the Constitution requires that Congress delegation of lawmaking power to an agency must be specific and detailed. Congress must clearly delineat[e] the general policy an agency is to achieve and must specify the boundaries of [the] delegated authority.... Congress must lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle, and the agency must follow it.
. . .

F. C. C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S .Ct. 1800, 1823-24 (2009) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (citing Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 372-74 (1989)). Here, Congress provided specific and detailed instructions regarding the boundaries of the delegated authority, but the agency has not followed the explicit directives. 19

The agency not only scoffed at the direct statutory instruction, the informally promulgated rules violated the basic rules of the APA, which also protect against Executive Branch encroachment upon legislative prerogatives: Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to ensure that agencies follow constraints even as they exercise their powers. One of these constraints is the duty of agencies to find and formulate policies that can be justified by neutral principles and a reasoned explanation. To achieve that end, Congress confined agencies discretion and subjected their decisions to judicial review. See R. Stewart & C. Sunstein, Public Programs and Private Rights, 95 Harv. L.Rev. 1193, 1248 (1982) (the APA was a working compromise, in which broad delegations of discretion were tolerated as long as they were checked by extensive procedural safeguards). If an agency takes action not based on neutral and rational principles, the APA grants federal courts power to set aside the agencys action as arbitrary or capricious. 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402,416,91 S.Ct. 814,28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). For these reasons, agencies under the APA are subject to a searching and careful review by the courts. Ibid. Id. at 1823-24. Because the agency entrusted with implementation of the SCA did not lawfully carry out its statutory responsibilities, the Court should consider the case as involving transcendingly important questions regarding the Executive Branchs failure to execute the laws as Congress wrote them. The Court should grant certiorari in this case because, otherwise, issues of extreme importance will not be resolved, institutionalizing violations of separations of powers and administrative law. The effect on thousands of prisoners, and the savings of millions of dollars through community placements, make this case of sufficient importance to warrant grant of certiorari. The prisoners whose freedom is most affected are those whose extended presence in the community would be justified by excellent institutional behavior. The Court should also grant certiorari because the principles of administrative law approved here apply in the non-prisoner

20

context. Where Congress directs notice-and-comment rule-making, the agency, unchecked by effective judicial review, continues to be free to ignore, or to give mere lip service to, statutory directives, while no effective remedy exists for the lawless action that thwarts the purpose of the SCA. D. This Petition Is Time Sensitive Because The Agency Continues To Operate Under Its Informal Rules And Still Has Not Promulgated The Regulation, With Opportunity For Comment, Required By The Statute.

Congress directed that the BOP promulgate a regulation to guide agency personnel in their determination of the appropriate duration of community corrections. The deadline for issuance of the regulation was July 8, 2008. Nearly three years later, the BOP continues to provide no direction by regulation. Instead, BOP personnel follow the old informal rule of six months maximum community corrections, absent extraordinary circumstances, thereby affecting the decisions on over 45,000 placements every year. The continuing nature of the constitutional and statutory violations provides a strong reason to grant certiorari. Governance by the rule of law becomes precarious when the beneficiaries of the statutory change are felons who possess virtually no political power and generally receive the disapprobation of the public. The only effective check on executive lawlessness is the Great Writ, the traditional last resort for the protection of individual freedom. Where the availability of community corrections is at issue the chance for prisoners to serve their time close to family and community even habeas

corpus provides a difficult forum to vindicate prisoner rights, given the doctrines of ripeness and mootness. As a consequence, the agency is free to continue its absolute defiance of congressional instruction and, on its own initiative, to decide that informal rule-making, rather than a notice-and comment regulation, will meet the statutes purposes. Because the agencys lawless activity 21

continues to this moment, and will persist in the absence of a grant of certiorari, the time sensitive nature of the claims provides strong support for this Court to grant review. E. The Present Case Provides An Ideal Vehicle For Review Of The Important And Urgent Issues Presented.

Due to the procedural peculiarities of prison litigation and the general lack of representation for prisoners serving time, this case provides an ideal

and probably the only

vehicle for review

of the SCAs implementation. Because reentry issues arise close to the end of sentences, individual litigants will either file too soon and be dismissed for lack of a ripe claim, or the case will become moot with the grant of belated community corrections. The claims are especially likely to evade review because, once the claims mature close to the prisoners projected release date, prisoners should avail themselves of the administrative remedies system, which can take many months. Then the district courts and appellate courts need time to consider and to rule on the issues raised. All this is done in a context where the federal prisoners are usually indigent and appointed counsel under 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a)(2)(B) is relatively rare. The present case provides a strong vehicle if the issues are deemed appropriate for review. The district court appointed counsel, who developed the relevant facts and raised the relevant separation of powers and administrative law issues. The district court also certified the case as a class action, so there is no concern with exhaustion of remedies, ripeness, or mootness. At the end of prisoners sentences, habeas corpus petitions on behalf of individuals are ordinarily disposed of as not ripe or moot, there is no unqualified right to habeas counsel, and prisoners do not have the resources to undertake the factual development that occurred here. The certification of a class appears to be the only effective mechanism for obtaining review. The chances of another case

22

threading through the procedural obstacles to reach the merits as here are vanishingly small. The

present case likely provides a clear opportunity for the rule of law to be applied against the executive decision to ignore congressional instruction on promulgation of an implementing regulation. 6. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court should issue a writ of certiorari for plenary review or, in the alternative, grant the writ, vacate the judgment, and remand for reconsideration based on the inapplicability of Skidmore deference where the authorizing statute directed notice-and-comment rule-making.
If Dated this L.o day of May, 2011.

Attorney for Petitioner

23

No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TIM RAY SACORA, Petitioner, LARRY L. BEAMAN, Petitioner Intervenor,

-

TODD H. SONOBE, Petitioner Intervenor,

-

V.

JEFF E. THOMAS, Warden, Federal Prison Camp, Sheridan, Oregon, Respondent.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND MAIIJNG

I, Stephen R. Sady, counsel of record and a member of the Bar of this Court, certify that pursuant to Rule 29.3, service has been made of the within MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS and PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI on the counsel for the respondent by depositing in the United States Post Office, in Portland, Oregon on May 16, 2011, first class postage prepaid, a certified true, exact and full copy thereof addressed to:

Kelly A. Zusman U.S. Attorney 1000 SW Third, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204

Neal K. Katyal Acting Solicitor General Room 5614 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20530-0001

Further, the original and ten copies were mailed to the Honorable William K. Suter, Clerk of the United States Supreme Court, by depositing them in a United States Post Office Box, addressed to 1 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., 20543, for filing on this 16th day of May, 2011, with first-class postage prepaid. Dated this
((P

day of May, 2011.

Stephen Sady Attorney for Petitioner

.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this

I (.QM day of May, 2011.

Noic of Oregon
NOZOGON

Case 3:08-cv-00578-MA

Document 57

Filed 06/16/10

Page 1 of 34

Page ID#: 743

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION TIM RAY SACORA, Petitioner, LARRY L. BEAMAN and TODD SONOBE, PetitionersIntervenors,
V.

CV.

08-578-MA

OPINION AND ORDER IN A CLASS ACTION

J.E. THOMAS, Sheridan,

Warden,

FCI

Respondent. STEPHEN R. SADY Chief Deputy Federal Defender 101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 1700 Portland, OR 97204 DAVID F. SUGERMAN 520 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204

Suite 920

Attorneys for Petitioner & Petitioners Intervenors DWIGHT C. HOLTON United States Attorney District of Oregon ADRIAN L. BROWN Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorneys Office 1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 972042902 Attorneys for Respondent OPINION AND ORDER

Appendix 001

NJ

ooo

LU
(I)

(CD [CD 0

C)
0
(1)

H HH CD
H 0)
(I)

0 0
IIj I-I

0 0 ft CD
H)
-,

H CD
(1)

I-H

0 -h CD H HCD
C

C-)

0 0
NJ
LU
LQ
j

ft 3CD
t

H CD O CD
(1)
.

H- 0 0 CD HHH (DHH,
02 NJ H

Ft H-

o-

C 0

3ft
H
-

NJ H

C)
0) Ci)

H CD

0
(1)
(1)

ft CD
it it

CD 0 CD 0 ft
(1)

H
-

H-CD D NJ(J)OCD Co ft ft< Co CD H

CD H CD
H

CD () C) 0)

C)
H0 0 CD H
< (I)

IH

0
o (1) NJ

CoO 0 :3 000 HCD HNJ I H(1)

Cl CD Di

s
i (1)

H0 [CD
(12
(jJ

C 0 Hft <
CD 0 ft (C C H H(ii

ft Hft C ft H0 CD ft
(1)

.1<

C
Ui

CD 0 Cl LU
02
(1)

HhO

0 0 0 0

(C CD ft Hft H0 :3

C Cl LQ CD

0-I

0 :3 CD
t
(1)

C)

00) CDCD (12:302 CD rC CDCD

0
(1)
jj

HHH

( (1)

HCD
(1)

CD 0 ft CD
NJ H FI-

C 0 H H0 HCD 0 CD r CD II 0 aCD

(C CD ft Hft H0 :3 CD H (C H CD 0 CD

CD ft CD (/) 0 CD Di 0 Cl H 0
(1)

H CD 0

so
>
CD

i0) CD

C) CDI

00)

Cl
-

Cu
CD ft CD H H ft 0 0 r H0 CD CD
-,
-

CD H(C CD 0 H CD ft 3CD CD H HCl CD 0

i

CD CD

0 H 0

CD
(1) H

H CD
-.

F
CD CD H)
U)

0 C-) C CD

3
(Y1 CD cC) 0 H3 [CD NJ

H H Cl H- H CD :3-C-) C H- ft CD (1) HN CD OFHCl

<:

0 H CD CD 02 CD HCl CD 0 CD H 0 CD CD CD ft
1 [F

H CD ) C H CD H H 0 H CD 0 CD

<1

H-H

w
1j

OCD (12 H- CD

CD
H H-

CD HiiC)

0
0 CD
H

H- 0 ft H c
Co

ft H

HCl

CD

H0 0

CD H

CD H

-n

o
CD 0
H)

H CD CD C

Ct)
CD

CD CD :3 CD H H 0 H

ft CD :3 0

H0 CD CD

CD CD 3 0

t-

0 0 H (C C CD ft CD
(1)
H

(1)

H HN

H CD CD 0 Ft CD
II

CD U) ft CD

CD 0 C)
H

Cl CD H
H[CD cC) 0 LU

HHH
02

ft
H

(-U

Cl CD CD ft HH

0)
-

HHO (JHCD 0 H[1 ft CDCD jHH H c< (C t3

(j

H H02 CD 0 Cl H(n 0
-

C)

CD(1)

0
t

CD

Ci Cl ftDi HO 0 CD
c-f it

CD H H (C H

CD Cl CD

CD

coc-t
CD 0
HH

Cl
CD
H)

CD
H-

H0
CD H
U)

CD
H Co

CD CD CDH)0HCDCD C3 Cl CD (, 0 0 HH Cl Cl H H Cl) >< CD w H (ii

0
0
0 H-

cD3O CDO

Cl
c-f

11
o
H H

H(1)

Cl
CD Cl

CD
H

CD Cl

H H-

CD H

CD

02(1) H

HCD C 1
C)
_.

H CO (

:3 Cl C)
(1)

:ft C)

C
0
-

0 NJ
.

I H co co

CD H
a

o
HCD
(I)

H 0 Cl Cl
(1)

-U
0 0
(12 H

CD

C) >
c-f

H U)

H C H CD
(j)

C
CD
Di (
k<

CD 0 ft H ;tz
H t)i H Co H

C)
ft CCD
to]

Cl CD H
0

coo
0 H) CD (n HD< 0 CD ft

C 3 Hft
CD 0 Cl

C 0 Cl CD H 0 ft CD 0 Cl C 0 Cl CD H 0 0 0 0 CD

CD i 13 CD

CD 0 0
It) CD

CD 0 ft H0 0
H

CD 3CD it

rtH :3-

<

CD

(jJ

NJCDHc)
H
N)
t

hrJ

CJU1HO P

0 0 W
d Di

C) 0
H

II

Ft

Ft

C)
CD
()

<

CD CD

Ft CD h

CD
Ft

0 F-

P CD

o
N)
H

N)

CD

U)
CD

H CD H-CDU CD

N)p.H
0 WNJF

p.
H
H H CD
LC)

CD H Ft
Ct Ft

Di )

-)OC)Op
H Ft CD
.

FtP
Di C)
CD CD U)

0 0 P

Ct

Q 0)
I C)

o
d

H-ItHiCD

HO p HP p. U)H Di C)

CD

p.
rJ

Ft CD CD rt 0 I.

H CD

N).

0 U)

OQ
HCD

CD

CD Di 3 Ft

C
0 H Ft
FCD

HO

HU)

Ft

CD
I

H CD p. W
0
0) F-

Ft H

01

HCDHH. 0 C) HHt, Fj

o
0 CD Ft 0 CD Di 1 F
LQ
.

CD0p.

p Ft

o
Ip. IH
CD CD IN Di P C,

CD X CD
Di Ft

CD Ft HFt

H-

C Hp

N) HP

Dii

O.

H OH-H

CD
HC)

u0.

PLC)

Ft CD p.
HP

II f

U)

Di CDFt H HOFtCD
rt

Ft P CD

0
H
H

P CD Ft
CD p.

I
HE7

b H 0 Di p.

CD D
P1

CD CD
U) C

HFt
CD

H 0 C) CD p. CD H p H Di P Ft p. H p Di
CD

(31
-

DiFtFtrt CDCD PDiC)U)ZP N)C)Z0WDiCD<CDCDCD CDH<H11P U) HFt P H p DiCD CD ppC)DiU)FtU) HOCDFtHHC)0FtFtCi0 coOHHCDCDCDPCD0HCD p. C)HCDH [p .FtCDCDk< C C) DiCD pFtDipU) CflU)CDH0 U)PHH-H-Pp. P<p. 0 F-d C)H .o pC) H FtC)H HHFt U)FtCDDiC) 0H HH0 Ci 0 HCDCD pCDC)Di CDH-Ft

Ft
Di
-

CDFt Di 1HCDp CD

o
N)U)C)L<Di
F,-<

0C)U)H

C).

0 H
Cli
FtDi< H Ft
N)

CD-OCD Di

HrtFtHpH-

-Di Ft

Di U) Ft p CD

CDCDFtFtDi PHCDDiC) Ft CD Ft 0 H U) C) H

Di Ft

H Di U) Ft C)o:oCD

H CD

hd
H Di

H-

fl CD
=

C) Ft

p
H-

H0 P Di H 1
Cli

CD
CD p. Di Ii
Ft

C)

-,

CD P H0 P

FtFtCD (DH 0 0

0
Ft 0
H
H

Di H Ft I-ti
CD Di

Di 0 HIDi ICDHH c)ikU) CDIH-0Di HIP P CDICD Dil CDH. H H Di Ft CD

CD
Ft 0
H-CD 0

CDI<U)p
Ft CD P
CDH-Ft

CDPHO C)FtHH Ft Di

Di P p. Ft p CD
H

C)
CD Ft
-rj

Ft CD

FtHC)H U)CDHFtU)Ft Di U) HC)0 p. HU)M 0 rt0FtP CDHoHPFt CDCD Ft H Di C) Ft 0 H U)

w
co o
-

P
Ft CD HH
H

Cl) 0 H HFt Ft 0

HC)

i 0 H p. CD p HCD

CD

<
Di <
Ft

0 H HFt <

hrj

p.
p p. CD H
H CD Di Ft CD p. CD Ft CD H Ft 0 Ft

CC) CD 0) 0 HFt P CD

HICDU) H- Ii HH CD CD
H

p CDDiDi CDPH p. p.
0 H

0 P CD Di
CD

CDH H p

CD P Ft CD P C) CD Di H CD CDCDFtCD CDH C)

CDHH HDi p.C)pdCDFt PCDHPCD H- U) p. Ft U)U)CD 0 FtCDO

C.I) H CD Di CD CD p. Ft 0
C) U)
j
-

U1Ft

Ft Di

CD CD 0 HH

Di H
c-t

CD

C
Cl) 0 0 Di Ft CD

H-

w 0 N) H C3
H HU) 0 P Ft P CD Ft HP Di Ft

N)CliCD p. hj U) IDi WH p.- CD

Case 3:08cv-00578-MA

Document 57

Filed 06/16/10

Page 4 of 34

Page ID#: 746

placements term, or

to the

shorter of the In April

final 2008,

10 percent of the prison the SCA amended 3624,

six months.

increasing an inmates RRC eligibility at the end of his sentence to 12 months. Section 3624(c) (1) now provides:

(1) In general. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of that term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the reentry of that prisoner into the community. Such conditions may include a community correctional facility. The BOP must consider the 18 U.S.C. five factors of 3621(b) when making 541 F.3d at

such placements. 1186. II. A.

3624(c) (6);

Rodriguez,

The BOPs Implementation of the SCA. April 14 Memorandum and Program Statement 7310.04. On April 14, 2008, the BOP issued a guidance memorandum which (1) that inmates are

details the changes required by the SCA, notably: are eligible for a 12 month RRC placement; (2)

that inmates

required to receive an individualized placement assessment under 3621(b); and (3) that court recommendations (Pet. Ex. (#48) F.) concerning The April RRC

placements lack binding effect.

Memorandum also includes the following provision: Regional Director Approval Required for Pre-release RRC Placement Beyond Six Months While the Act makes inmates eligible for a maximum of 12 months pre-release RRC placements, Bureau experience reflects inmates pre release RRC needs can usually be accommodated by a placement of six months or less. Should staff determine
-

OPINION AND ORDER

Appendix 004

Case 3:08-cv-00578-MA

Document 57

Filed 06/16/10

Page 5 of 34

Page ID#: 747

an inmates prerelease RRC placement may require greater than six months, the Warden must obtain the Regional Directors written concurrence before submitting the placement to the Community Corrections Manager. Program Statement (P.S.) 7310.04, provides that tam inmate

may be referred for up to 180 days, with placement beyond 180 days highly unusual, and only possible with extraordinary justification and with approval from the Regional Director. p.9.) The April Memorandum instructs staff (Pet. that Ex. P.S. (#48) D,

7310.04

remains in effect,

with certain adjustments to reflect the SCA. (1) providing an instead of the (2) conducting

The adjustments to the program statement include: RRC assessment previous time 17 to 19 months prior to release, of 11 to 13 months;

frame

individualized assessments of inmates using the five factors in 3621(b); could (3) be (4) ignoring any criteria contained in P.S. 7310.04 an are RRC of of

which

construed ensuring to

as

automatically

precluding

placement; sufficient

that prerelease RRC placements provide the greatest

duration

likelihood

successful reintegration into the community; and (5) provisions in P.S. frame.

ignoring any

7310.04 which reflect any other possible time

B.

Regulations 28 C.F.R. 570.20-570.22.

On October 21, 2008, 73 Fed. the Reg. BOP 62,443 published regulations

implementing the SCA. C.F.R. 570.2022)

.

(2008) (codified at 28

Section 570.21 provides that inmates may be

OPINION AND ORDER

Appendix 005

Case 3:08-cv-00578-MA

Document 57

Filed 06/16/10

Page 6 of 34

Page lD#: 748

designated to community confinement near the end of their prison terms, not to exceed 12 months. Section 570.22 provides that

[i]nmates will be considered for prerelease community confinement in a manner consistent with 18 U.S.C. on an individual basis, section 3621(b), determined

and of sufficient duration to provide the

greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community, within the time-frames effective on the date until December 22, set forth in this part. The rules were accepted the BOP

of publication and comments were As of the date of this opinion,

2008.

has not issued final rules.

C.

November 14 Memorandum and Program Statement 5100.08.

On November 14, 2008, the BOP issued another guidance

memorandum to staff, pertaining to inmate requests for transfers to RRCs when they (Pet. have Ex. more G.) than 12 months remaining on their

sentences.

The November Memorandum clarifies that

RRCs are penal institutions; that staff cannot automatically deny RRC transfer requests; and that in all requests with must receive next

individualized

consideration

conjunction

their

scheduled program review. 3 that at the inmates

The November 14 Memorandum instructs program review, staff must provide

individualized consideration of the 3621(b)

factors and Bureau

policy to ensure placement of inmates in a facility commensurate

Program reviews occur approximately every 180 days. 3 5322.12 at 45. 6 OPINION AND ORDER

P.S.

Appendix 006

Case 3:08-cv-00578-MA

Document 57

Filed 06/16/10

Page 7 of 34

Page ID#: 749

with their 5100.08.

security arid program needs, (Pet. Ex. G, p. 3.)

under

Program Statement

In the November Memorandum,

staff are admonished to consider

the resources and purposes of available RRCs which are designed to assist inmates with reintegration into the community. The

memorandum also reiterates that RRC placements for longer than 180 days require unusual or extraordinary circumstances and approval

from the Regional Director: The level of structure and supervision available at these facilities is designed to assure accountability, provide program opportunities in employment counseling and placement, substance abuse, and aid inmates in acquiring daily life skills so as to successfully reintegrate into the community at large. An RRC placement beyond six months should only occur when there are unusual or extraordinary circumstances justifying such placement, and the Regional Director concurs. (Id.) DISCUSSION Petitioners decisions, but do not challenge their individual RRC placement instead ask this court to invalidate the BOPs

Program Statement 5100.08, in turn, details the BOPs 4 inmate security designation and classification system. Although petitioners assert that Program Statement 5100.08 is substantively and procedurally invalid in their second amended petition for habeas relief, petitioners offer no specific argument concerning Program Statement 5100.08 in their supporting memorandum. Accordingly, this court considers those arguments abandoned. In any event, several courts have determined P.S. 5100.08 is a valid exercise of discretion and comports with Heppner v. Roal, 2010 WL 1380146, adopted in full, 2010 3621(b) WL 1380141 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2009); Crim v. Adler, 2009 WL 1309589 (E.D.Cal. 2009); cf. Moody v. Dactgett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 (1976) (an inmate has no constitutional right to any particular custody or security classification)
.

OPINION AND ORDER

Appendix 007

CD H-

Di
Ui

C)
it

U) F- it

H-

CD
C)

w
Di
Ci
it t C)) Cii h
Ft H-

1W

Di
C) Hit

IC) it CD H

hd

C)
D) 0 CD Hi CD
0 H I-- C) HCD

ID
C/) Ci
h

o
0
CD H
it

u w
Di Ci it 0
it

lo

U) C])

0
it 1<

CD
f-

Di C) Di H
iJ CD HCi
C)) I F]

Ci C) Cl CD

l-

cC) CD
H
-

I Di i
C) Di
H U)

0 U U) HH CD H0 HU)
U) U) U) Cn

Ft

CD C) it 0

C) HH
C) CD CD C) () CD

() C CO

it
j)

fr]

F-)

Di C) Cl Ci CU
I-] -rj hj H

HC) it CD Di hd H0
-

0 C) C)
N H-

Cii

it H-

Hit H0 C) CD it Q
it

it C) ci CD

Di Ci d

OM O flLQ I WPJ ct CD
F- F- H H

U) Ci CD

C) ]1

CD CD
U) it Di
it
.

C 0) OD

C)
-

0
F]

d CD it Hit H0 C) CD CD C) C) < H HCD

U) NJ it H CD

C)

<

0 CD
it

LQ

Di it
N) C)

C) F] CD Di it CD

w
C) it Di it Di CD Cl (1) Di it
-,

NJ CD

Di it

C)

o
D HCD H-

Di
U)

C) P

CD H H Ci
it

C)
-j

CD C) iH

U) it Cl
.

Di C)

Di

U) Ci U) it Di HC)
t

Di 0
H ci

U)
FH

Ci HCl CD H

o
CD Ci
])i

F
it CD

C) CD

CD CD Di
ci

H C) <

C) CD Ci U) HCD
CD w

C)

0 C) CD

<
H
Is)
-

Ci Di
H-

U)

W C) CD C)

0 H H
-

HCl CD

3
Ci U) FDC

C) C) Di

Cl CD Cl

Di 1

<

Ft

Ci CD Di
ci
IC)

Di
CD

Di
C

0 I
Hi-iCD Cl)

HC) it

o
NJ
Cli
-

o
C)
CD Di

H CD

8d
HC)

H N) I- CD

CD C) it U) it

o
0 C) it C)
h

Cii it HC)
=

C) CD F] 0 C)
-,

CD

o
H

Hi C)
CD

fl CD C) C
it

Di
-O ii

Ct Di

0 Di
-.

it

it
H C)

F] C ci CD it Di

o
-

it

U)

o
F-I

CD C) Di it it CD C) C)

CD

Ci
CD it Ci F] Ci
(I)

0)
A

it HCD

0 C) 0

o
0 Hi
CD

CD

ci CD it Di

CD Hfri

C it H
H H hCj

c8i

C)
H

H Di
C) U)

CD Di
U)

Di

m
it
HHi
F-)

C)
Ft Di

hd

CD

0 0 C)
-

H Di Cl CD Di
CD

CD NJ

c-i CD

IDi

CD it CD Di CD C) Ci it CD

CD CD 0 it
CD H

CD

it C) CD Hit

CD Di
H H

U) U)
it U) F)

CD 0
CD

Ci H-

CD C) 0

H-

L
w

HC) HDi IH
-

I-h

it Di
U) U)

8 C)
Di H CD Ci it CD CD
H-

F] Di F] CD CD C)
LQ U)

Hi Hci it

CD

iC)

I-h

0 H
I H D D Ui

i-IH-

CD C) it U) CD

it

i CD

H-

lit to IC)
0 it C) CD
I-)

it CD C) it H C)
HHi HU)

Ci

Di Cl Cl

0 C) CD W (I)
-

H0 C) Di

Cl CD C) HCD Cl

CD Di C) C)

F) U)

Ui Cli Ui

Di U) CD Cl 0 C)

H)

C) CD Hi
it C) CD

Hit

CD C) it
U)

CD
U) U)

it Di it Ci it CD

Ci CD Di D U)

Hit C) 0 Ci it

Cr1 C

, 0

jDi
CD
C) H 0

H0
H U)
LQ LQ

X
iC1) H Ft

U) d 0
H
HDi it

0
Di H

Ft
CD

C)
CD

Q Di H

0 0 0 H0 0

0 0 H
H

I-xj

CD
0)
H

0 H HU H. P U CD Di 0 CD
N H
,

0 Di H Di Di Ft CD UI 0
iU
-

0 0 p. CD CD CD cu H Di 0
it
0) N) H

H CD HCD Di CD
U)

Ui Ft H CD
U)
Fl

Di

ft

C) H 0 H
Ft it

Ft CD U) CD CD Di
H

F-H

0 CD CD CD
U)

0 Di
0 Ui
-

Di Ft Ui
H TJ

CD

r
U
CD U Ft Di U P 0 H Ft H0 U U)

Di H Di 0 Ft CD CD
C) 0 U H Di H Di 0 ft Di H CD Ft Ft 0 Ft I i 0)
-

0 HCD

0 < Ft Di Q C-,, 0)

Di
H
N)

0)

Ft U)

H H

p. H
Di 0 CD 0 0 CD Ft

H CD CD U Ft
0 0

0 0 U

0 Ft 0 N)

0 Di]
0)

0 UI CD
it

H HH0 H P ft CD Di CD
H
H H 0) HUi

s ft HCD 1
0 Ft
H Ft

--o
U
HFt

0 0

CD Ft H
CD

HU 0 H Di 0
HU

H U)

Fl FtDi 0 Ft U CD H U) Ft H CD H CD Di U) hd CD Ft H-

U 0 H Ft CD
1

a
CD
Ft 0

Q
C
0

Ft CD

Di H 0 CD C)
Ft

H HFt H-

co
0 H H-

C)

Ft 0

CD
U

p. 0
Ft
U)

CD H CD Ft

3
H0 U CD H

LQ

Ft 0 CD
0
0 0

Di H 0 Dii
H

Di H 1 D i U Ft 0 U

it

Di

p.

Di

Di Ft H0 Ft M CD
H-

Ft

Cl) U Ft

CD p. ci Fl
it

Di H 0 0 CD

Ft 0
HCD H
0

CD X
HN)

P U
Ft U UI it

Ft CD

R CD

Dl

Ft
H

10 0 ft CD
0
Ft

I 1*
Dl 0 H H Di Ft CD 0 0 0 Fl Di H U) 0

U)

0 CD

Ft

Di 0 0
U

CD U Ft cC H 0 H CD
Dl Ft

0
U)

0 CD

H U
Di

H ft P U
Ft

U)

CCD U < HU

P Q LO CD
Ft
H-

Ft 0
z 0

HU)
0

CD
0

HHCD

C C) C)

Di H H -< tO) U) N) 0 0) cC 0 H w
0

H HFt Dl Ft CD H Di U) p. P Ft Ui 0) 0) Ft CD Ft HFt CD p. UI H Di H0 -i CD CD
0

P Ft CD

Di

Ft 0 H 0 Ft Di Ft HCD U) 0 H P UI Ft 0 tO) 0 CD H Di H H CD ft p < 0) N) H Dl 0 CD 0) N) @ CD Ft H CD U t P Di H 0 U H Ft

C (C CD

HU CD 0 . I H Ft
0 1 F t o

Ft

CD Fl -,

UI H Di 0 Ft H0 Di b H CD ft P Ft Ft 0 U-) ft
-<

Di Ft CD Ft 0

H CD
it H H H N)

CD H
tO)

0 CD
Ft C)

Di UI UI 0) * N) p. CD H
Ft Di Ft 0) N) r p. CD Ui Ft

H CD CD

kn CD 1 CD

0
0 0 1 D i

p.
H-

Ft Ft 1 C D U)
Ft 0 < I

C) U) 0) N) -
C)

) Di 0

co

CD
HU) U) 0

U)

0)

CD it Ft CD 0 U Ft

Di

H <
0 0 Ft

CD U) CD

CD CD l
C) HFl 0 0 Ft Ft 0 U) CD UI 0 UI H 0 Fl 0 0 t 0 0 Ft UI Fl CD I Di U p. UI 0 UI

Ft H0 U
Di H H 0 Fl p. 0

HU)

jH I 1 p. U U) Hp. CD H

H HFt Di Ft CD

Cii
A

0
C) CD
C)

H C)
LO LO

Di H CD
Hi
CC

Di

Ci 0
FCt

CD N) C)
C)
C C

Ct CD Ct
HH
Ft CD 2.
k<

FH-

FH-

W
Hi
L<

0 CD
t

0 H CD Di ct 0 CD Ct
Cl) CD
H-

Cl Ci H Di CC
HCD
0 1 Cl)

N)
n uj

H CD LO Ci FDi 0 CD d H 0 W 0 Cd Di
cC

CD 0 cC 0 H CD CD Ct CD
HCt
Ho

Cd 3
Ct

Ci Hi

Hi

CD Cl)

H-

) CD 0 Ct CD Cl

Ct CD N)
C) C) H-I
j
-

0 0

0
Cl)

Ci Di H CD 0 Ct CD CD -1 CD Cl
H 0 CD

Cl Ci H Di Ct H0 Di 0

o
H0 0

Ct Di it

CD
IN)

H HDi Di HCD
Ct Cl)

Ct Di
ct

H <

Cl 0 CD C)
C) H HHHi

CD Ct CC CD H CD Cl

FL
0
3

Ct 0

CD CD

CD H H

Ci 0 Cl CD H

o
CD

H Ct 0 Cl H 0

Ct

LQ

Cl
Di o N)
I-I

0 0 cC

IH
Ct H CD Hc) H Ct 0 Ct CD
Ft

CD H H-

CD 0 C)
H HH 0 0 CD H

CD Di 0 Cl l IH

) H CD Di Cl) H0

0
C) I:x
it
Hi H-

CD Ct

o
Cd 0 H CD C) CD H
1<

HH CD

1 I
C) I CD H

Cl
CJ

Ft

H H Cl
Hi

H CD LO cC H0 0
cC

0 3 Ct 0

HQ CD H CD 0
Cl)
frrj )

Cl 0

C/)

CD
C) H
c cj
L<

HH CD

Di H H CD 0 Ct CD Cl

0 Ci
LQ

d CD

Cd H CD

Cl Ci

I lCD {
Cd CD H ( Ci CD

H Di 0 Ct H 0 Di H CD

o 0 C
0

Ct 0 Cl HHi CD HH Ct CD Ct Cd CD HCl CD Hi Ci H
ou C) C)) CD CD

Ci 0 0 CD C)
CD H Ct

0 HCD

(rJ
CD

0 0

0 0 CD CD

H CD 0

H CD H HDi 0 0 CD

Cl) D

Hi

Ct 0 Di Ct

H CD i H CD H CD Di

H 1<
1 I
H< CD

0 0

CD 0

C)

C) Ci

CD CD 0 0 CD Cl Cl
Hi cC H

Hi

H CD 0 0

Cd o H H CD Di
H

Ci H CD
Ct 0

CD Ct 0
H

Hi Hd C)
Ccl

CD 0 Ct C)

I
H-

0 0 Ci H Ct C)

CD 0 Ct Hi Ci H H

d d C)

H3 0 0 0
CD

IC)) ICt IH lo

0 CD H 3 C)

0 Ci C) C) CD Cl CD 0 Cl Ci Cl HDi Ct Di Ct CD

Ct CD
C) CD 0
(ji

CD 0 Ct
CD CD H Cl HH 0

0 H
CD

CD

a
Ct 0
0 C CD
Hi

HC)

lCD IH Ct lu-

lo
IC))

(0 I CD

Cl)

k ICt
IH

Ci 0 0
-

CD 0.. C) 0)
s

C
j-

0 0 0 Cl HCt H CD 0 CD LO cj-,
.
-

H Di 0 CD 0 <1 CD
L<

H-Cl CD

I-.

H-

X Ct CD
Ct CD Ct H 0 0 H Di 0 CD

H0 CD

Ct CD 0 Ct
H CD Ct H-0 0

Di C))
C.Ji

CD

CD 0
HDi Ct H Ci CD Cl Ct 0

0 0 C) CD d
<

CD 0 Ct H CD 0 Hi
Ct

Di C H CD CD

Ct

Cd H Di 0 CD
CD 0 Ct CD CD
--

0 C)

HCt

CD CD Ct CD
Hs

Cl Ci H CD Ct H0 CD H
Ct CD

C/)

d CD

0 o C

o
0 CD CD
H
Hi

Ct

CD

F
01
C)

C) CD 0

Ct
CD HC) CD
<

0 Hi H 0 Cl H-

0 IH ICi lCD Ct C H CD
&

CD
CD 0 Cl

C/) Ci Cd Cd

H HCt C/) C)
1<

C) 0
-

uH CD
H H-

Ci Cl CD
-

Ft

Cd HI

0 CD

Ct Di Ct Ci Ct

Cl CD 0 <
0 C

Cd H 0
CD
<

1(0 lCD IH
o
N) Hi

Cl
0 H

<

Cl
0 CD
Cl) N

CD
Cl)
,

H H Ci 0 0 Cl CD CD Cl) CD CD Ct HC) CD Cl HCl Ci CD H Hi C)

Di Ct

HCl CD

H Cl CD C) Ct CD
Hi Hi

d CD 0 CD Ci 0 0 Ci
I-I Ct
Ci)

Cl Ui

C)

5
d
Ct Ci CD Ci

0 Hi

HC)

Ct Ci CD

C H CD Di Ct CD C) Ct Ci 0 Ct

H 0 Ci C CD Cl) Ct

HCi Ct CD Ci Cl CD Cl

Ct Ci CD

H CD C Ci HH H3 LQ

CD

CD

0 0 Ci 0 H Ci Cl CD Cl

01

01 CD

Cd CD 0 CD

N)

0
1))
C)

Cj
LQ

H F-

C) 0 H<

N) C

X
N) LO

CD C)
H C)

HCD CD
CD

H CD U) CD 1

CD CD

CD H H-

C)
C,

C) 0 C)
CD

CD C C)

HCD
LQ

Ft

H-

CD
C

H C

C)
,
CD

HC) C) 0 C) HCD C) II C)
hC) CD Cl) H J

H0 1 CD C) CD
CD

C) 0 C H Ft )i Ci C) HH

0 HH CD Ft 0 CD CD Ft W 0 Ft C) CD CD Ft 0 CD CD C)

W
H
CD

C) CD H CD Ft CD Ft CD Ft H-

k<

H CD
H
*

CD
Ft H

C) 0 H
Ft H0 C)

)i CD C) H0 C) CD H

C)

Ft 0 H N) Ft 0
H H

CD

H C)
CD Ft CD Cl)

U) CD C) Ft H0 C) Ft CD C) Ft

CD H, H, CD C) Ft

C)

LQ

CD Ft CD C) Ft H0 C) C)

HFt 1 CD CD H H

0 H HFt
(,i C

Ft N)
CD
Cl)

C)
Ft CD CD H CD
)

H 0 C) CD 1 CD C) Ft HC)

P
C)Hk< )

1<

CD

CD N) C) U) 1)i rj
II

CDH CD C) HCD H 0 C)CDH.CD FtC)cnC Ft 0 Ft CD C)C) 0(1)0 H,H HFt CDFt

CD CD

HH CD C) Ft

iai
CD

0 C)
CDCD0P
CD HCD

Ft CD H H 0 0 H 0 < CD CD

hdCDC) C) CDFtC)C)

0 C) Ft

2
ki IC)
CD IH IFt lCD

10 10
I-

CD

C)
HCD

H CD CD H- H CDCDH
<

CD H 0 CD
C/)

CD

H0 H,

H CD Ft CD CD CD0C)Ft 0 c1H,

HC)

l<

CD Cl) C)
Ft j N)
C

2
CD
I 1<

IPIHI I
I I(j CD

3
C CD H, 0 H HC) CD H
CD

I I

C/) CD

CDH CD
CD
-

H H CD

CD

Ft CD C)

it

zj
HCD H CD CD
H

I I 10 I
k)i

CD CD

CD

C) 0 Ft
H CD CD Ft Ft Ft H, C H H
-,

CD Cl)

C) 0 C) C)
CD Ft Ft
C

C) HC)

I
CD

H, H

CD 0 C)

<

CD Ft H CD C)

C) CD Ft

CD H

r
H
HC, 0
CD

CD H CD C) Ft
CD

ct

HC)

HC)

H CD CD

CD

CD Ft
H C

CD
i

LC)

0 Ft
0 CD H CD HC)

C) CD Ft
Ft CD C)

H CD

C) 0

CD

HC)H,O

CD
CD HW 0 -C/
CD

CD
0 CD H Ft H0
Cl)

CD

HFt

P
CD HFt CD

CD
0 H, HC)

(3)

C HH CD CD H C) 0 CD Ft CD H h H, 0 H FtCD Cl) CDCD Ft

oCD

CD

H-

I
H H

CD

CD

I
CD

Ft H-

p.

CD Ft CD , N) U)
*

1
HC)
<

CD

(C) Ft U) CD 0

Ft Ft 0 HC) CD Ft CD
CD

Ft H0 CD H-

P H CD C) H CD Ft H 0 0 H CD H

CD

CD
hi

CD Ft CD Cl HCD HFtp. H-CD CDhiFt 0 0 0C)

W Q d

w x
CD hi CD C) 0 1) HC) CD OHC) hlC,CD
CD

Ft

CD H H CD CD

C) CD

Cl

0 H,

0 -4,

g
HFt
CD

C_,)

C Ft
0 C) Ft

Ft

Ft 0

d 0 H H C) HCD Cl CD ct CD C) Ft H0 H Co

,p

C Hh(

Li-

CD

CD

-C)

CD CD

-C)
CD
CD h(

Ft C) CD

Ft

H CD Ft CD Ft H0 C) H, CD HH Ft 0

H CD H Ui

HC) CC)

C HCD
CD

CD N) C, C,
LO

w
CD 0 H HFt I(1 CD W 0 d CD C) HCD I0 Hi 0 Hi
Cl

CD C) Ft CD

-C) H CD C) CD HC)

0 FI Ft

CD C) CD

HCD

0 (1

H N) H0 H
<

tDi
CD
N)

Ct Cl- rt

Di

Di
C) HC) Di
H II

Di
C) Cl) Ft
CD
U)

Di
0 C)
HC)
Di N)

cDC)

Cl) Dc

CD
I

(C H HPi CDH-H CDI 0 hO

Di P

ci) C),

C-)

C)
H-

hO C)
(1)

*U)

)SQ
C) 0

F-

o
C)
Ft
-

DiCJ)HcOC)

HC) CD
N) HCD

0 C C)
Ft Ft HhO H LO C

HC) CD C) C
Ft H H Ft CD

0 0 C) 0 CD 0
HFt

CD C) CD

-IC
CD Ft Ft C) Di Di
C)
H

H CD
0 C
U)

ED CD 0
U)
Di

C-,

CD (DC) 0 HC) H
C
CD H Ft

HCl Ft CD 0 Cl Di H C) hO CD
H

hO H HC) Di U) CD Ft 0

o
-

C)FtH. C)N)I

CDCDrt M tflD) HO HFthO 0 H OtO)Q CDHHFt

CD pit 11
JCDCD I C)
U)
1DHl-tl

t (J1HN)H-CD

t C) CD

DiFH JO

C H2Cl) H

CD

hO

CD CD 0 1 CD

CiD4

o
U)

flHH<

HFt DJHH2CD H CD
H(ii Ft H

j Cl
HCD CD
.

CD 2-

Ft

>

CII

51
H C) Di 0

rt
H

Ft

H 0 H
HX CD

0 0

C)
H

ci
0 C-)
HC

H(1 H H CD Di It HCD H CDHDiC)FtF tF t H H CD CD Di H o Ft CD CD U) CD H H H H H CD Ft 0 CD hO Di o 0 Ft CD Di CD < C) H C) CD hO U) HX 0 CD 0 CD CD Ft CD H H H0 Di CD Ft H X

-

H Ui(-t

CD CD hOC) C) i-ct DiDiCD C) )j CJ)O CD C)Di (DC) (I HC)CDO C) rt Ft C)-hO H-C lI CDCMOMC) C) U) H- C) CD CD
N)
U]

0 CD Ft CD HFt H H

(hO H
H 0 CD
Ft

c-t
l)

C) Ft Di
C) CD

C)

C) CD
C) 0 0

CD
CD C)
H Ft Di ) Ft Ft

3
1
0
LO

tJ)CD
Ft

ct CD U) H-O

0
H Di H C) U)

Ft

CD

Di H CL Cli
Ft HC) C
-

F <

C) CD
Ft

hO

H LU

C) (1
H Di
0

HU) U) H-

HC)

-n
hO
H

Di
H

N). Cl) U)C)Ui CDH Hl_I C)C)H o ON)U) ED) rt H M) N) CD (Ii 0 CD Ft Cl) H o0 C) C)rtH N)C) FtCD Di CD

C)
H
CD

o
C
U)
Ft

C) CD H Ft
(0

t
Ft

0 U) H HFt
Ft
H

rt
CD

H X
Ft

Ft

(0 CD
H H CD Di 0

0
Ft CD 0

CD 0. CD 0) 0)
0 C)
Cl)
-i

oC) DCD jC) i3C) Di

ctQ Cn Ft

ctH

H-

H .

C)CD
L<

Ft

CD

Cli

CD

CD 0

CD 20

Di
H-

w
CD Ft CD H

CD CD 0
Cl)

Ft
Di

CD CD Ft 1J
HH-

H H

Ft Di Ft

H 0 C)

DiC) CD CD

CD
U)

CD C)

C
Ft

I:::

H-

c
L

0 CD H CD
H C)

-D ci) CD CD
H

ClJ0

(ii H

Ft

CliC)
-

CD
N)H

H< 0 C) HH H- CD O 0 HC) )C) N) H-HC) Ft D Ft LQH-0 0 DiUJ HFt CD CD H- H- < 0 H FtCD 0 C)CDH <

CD

2-

CD
Ft

C)

CD
CD Di
U)

C)

Di < CD
U)

CD
Ft CD CD CD
.

C
U-

CD C) Ft
H

H-

C)
C C H CD
HCD

111

LQ

Di H
1<

Cli
Cl)

HCD Ft HCD Ft HU) Ft Di Ft H H-

HC) 2H-

Di
Ft

0 -4,

Q ()C)

0 C)
-

H-

Ft C) 0 H

C/) C H(1

Di
Q

CD

0 Di Ft Ft C Di

CD U)

c)
2HFt

CD H CD H CD C) 0 H CD
-

C
LO

0
1 H

C) LO

Di FtOt cn H

Ft CD
Cii H

CD H hO

CD H

Ft

CD 2CD
HU)

Di
0 C)

H-

-U ci) (0 CD 0
Ft H-I
pi

Ft Di

HO CD OhO HCD Cj C)CD HhO H- H CD -fcttj OH-DiCDhO ct CD H- Ft H 1C) 0 ct U) 1 CIiCD OD) FtctX C) 0 HFt CD

C) 0
Ft C) CD Cl Di H Ft C) CD Cli C) < Cl H < Ft CD CD 0 C) CD

ci
C) CD C)) C)) I

Di Ft

C C) Cl CD H

U)

Cl
U) U) U)

U)

hC)

U)

C) H
HC)
U)

C)
H,
H,

NJ C) C) (0

HU) HHU)
< H-

C)

H C)

C) Hh
Dl U) U)

Cl) Di C) C) C) flCl

Di C) Cl CD
H-

C) C) Di
U) HFt
H,

0 C)
H

H-

Ft

C) C) C) CD 0 H
U) U)

HC) Cl CD C)
CD Di

H CD IC)

C)
(I)

lo I
Di IDi
U)

HI Di

U)

H CD Ft 0
U)
-

C) .i

ct CD C) CD
U) Ft

Di Cl
-

o
Di C) C) H
U)
(-3,

H-

Di Ft Ft

HDl

U) U)

HC) Ft C)
H-

IC) lo I

Ft 0
C) 0 C)

H Di

Ic) lU)
U) H

Ft 0 H U) HC)
H-

CD C,) C

Cl C) Di

o
Ft HFt 0

CD C) <

0 C) Ft H Ft CD C) C)
<

CD CD
HCD
hC)

C)
C) 0

0 C)
iC)
H,

CD Di
N
H,
-

< CD C)

CD C) Ft

2) CD (C)

8
U)

C)

o
H

CD H
CD

HI Di
3

C) HI H
-

C) Di
C)

H
HC)

Ft C) CD Cl C) C) ) Ft Cl
U)

CD Cl

Cl CD Ft Di HH HI C) (C) CD
<: -

C C
(Y1

.1
H-

Di
H

HI Di Ft C)
U)
U

C)
U)

H CD
U) HH-

H-

LQ

H CD U) U)

C) H 0

H C) Cl CD

IC)
C) H C)

Ft

o
CD

o
Cl
hC)
:1<

CD
C)

CD Ft H Di Ft
C) CD
U) Cl) CII

0 C)
CD C)
U)

Ft
H CD HC)

C) Di

IJ) I

0 2) C) HI 2) C) HH CD b H CD
H CD U)

Ft 0 H H NJ Ft

HFt
Ft

(I)

Di
-,

o
Ft

Di Dl
J (ii

0 C) H

o
0 H
U)
tI

Di Cl Ft 0
H0

H CD HC) Ft CD (C) H Di Ft H0 C)

o
HI
H Ft C) CD

C) H CD H Di
Di

CD C) Ft CD Cl Di Ft

CD Di H H
HCD

0 C, CD

CD

H-

H Cl CD Di
H-

Di C) Cl CD H

U)

C)

H-

a
CD C)
-l

Ft C)

H < Cl

0 C) U) HCl CD H Dl Ft H HCl CD Cl
C)

LF

hC)

6
Di CD
H

Cl
0 CD
H,

1
HH

-,

C) Di H U) co H

H CD C) 0 C)

o
Di C) Ft CD
H,

Cl HCl C) H HI HDi Ft C) 0 C)
Ft

C) Cl
hC)

H
Di Ft

H
CD H
U)

-Il Ft C) CD
CD

C)

NJ C) H C)

(0

C) c CD
H

o
C) 0
HU)

0 Ft

o
C) Di 0 C) Ft

Ft CD H
NJ
C)
cj

Cl Di Ft

CD 0 C 0) Cl Di Ft CD
H

LH

HH C)

NJ C)

C) HH

C) C) C) Cl H<

Dl C) Cl
C) U) HHFt
U)

C) Di
U)

rII hC)

H
-

NJ

(0 C)

(0

H CD I H CD CD H CD Di H CD CD
H,

H-

H 0 C) HC) CD
<

H HH H
C)

U)

H 0 C) Di
CD
IDI
-

0)

C) H
NJ C)

U)

Ft

(0 (C)

Di C) C) Ft CD Di
Ft
H

Di C) Ft

Ft C) Di Ft
HDi

3 C) NJ

X
Dl

Cl CD H

o
H
CD

-,

CD 2)

Ft Ft

Ft
CD Di

H H

IH, IH,
Cl

NJ NJ

CD

H
H,

U)

Cn
C)

-1 H NJ

C-n C) H CD 0 Di H
H,

o
C)
H-

C) Di Di HFt
HFt

Cl H
U)

NJ

8 Ft
Ft CD
U)

CO

c)
C)
F

CD
C)

C)

HU)

U) C) U)

8 C)
H Ft H Di
0

H CD
H

CD CD C)
HC)_ Ft U)

C)_
H
-

Di C) Cl C) HC)
t&)

2
x
H HFt
U) HC)

CD

IC)
i
H

H Di C)

0 Di C) CD U)
C) NJ

C)

H-

Cl CD H

10
Di
o

.!i
-

H-

Dl

C?) C) (C) HI Di
U)
I-C)

C) Di
C)

Ft

C) Cl
CD C) Ft

C-) Di
H H H

x Di
Cl HC) (C) HI
(Ii
(I)
-

HC)
NJ
H

1b
0 0 Cl
H

Di
1 Dl H

H C) C)CD H Ft 0 H Ft :o CD < H
U)

IH Di Di H CD 0
H, -

Ft C) CD

Dl H H

CO CD

H Cl HC)

o
tD 0
H,

CD

HI CD

0 HI

H U)

0 C) Ft C)
U)

U)

H CD C) CD H< CD

2)

2)
C)

H H-

C)
0

CD H I

ICl
C) < H CD

IDi

I-C)

Ft C)

1<

U)

I.

CD H

CD

01

0
(I)

H LI

W
H Cl
&i

C)
CD

0
CD

0
-

0
:< C <

Di CD X
H-

H 3
H CO
hO

d
U)

:3 Ci CD
Ft
hj

CD CD
H

I Ui CO

I Ft

U) H-

C) CD :3
0 H

Di hO
U Ni Co
ci) Co

Fr
CD C)

0 I IHC) LI C) Ci
U)

CD
c)

LI

0 LI 0 CD
H

Di Ci Fr HFt U) FL-

Di 0 CDU) ICi

hO H Di C) CD
CD :3
H

o d
U) Ft

CD Q CD
CD
H

z CD LI Di H H Ci Fr
Ci

Di :3 Di
0

0 CD
id) ct Di

LI 0 < Di lCD Cl

ii Ic Cl LI IHP

Cl CD Fr CD LI

0
C)

2
IN CD
:3
:3
L
-,

Ci U) H0

:3
H
C)

Di
CD
U)

Fr

:3

Ni 0 H CD

o
FL-

HLI

it U)

CD
CD

U)

FI I-a0

CD
Di
-

Z Cl CD CD
U) 0

LI
I Fr
cii Ft

CD Cl H 0 LI
H H cii 0

:3

Ci LI Fr :3 CD LI
CDCD Cl H

0 0 Cii Di Cl 0
Ft

CD :3 Ft

CO o

I
Ic 1:3 CD
hd H
,

CD Co
N.) H
-

H Di
Di FCD CD

Di H
hj cii
hj

Cl Di Fr 0 LI CD X Fr CD 0 LI CD
H H

H
0

so
>
Di Fr

Di
L

LQ

IDJ
ct

CD o

O Cl
L

o cii

cc cc cc
H

Di :3 Cl LI CD
L

LI CD U) H
H H-

IHICl
LI Di H HDi CD LCD Ci 0
j

U) N

H Di CD
C) Di Ft
Di U) H

Ft CD Cl
H0 H :3

C 0
it w

Cl H CD Cl 0 :z Cl
0 H
hO

C) C

CD

Di U)

NJ CD H C)

CD Cl

C) o o LI Cl H:3 Di Fr H0 :3 0

0
H H H
LQ

Cu

CD

3
I-

Fr
LCD

H cii cii

H H

CD 0 CD
H, H

Di
H 0
-

0 Ci
U)

0 H
H H
H Ui

Fr Ci Ft 0 LI

hO H Di C) Fr 0CD

C) CD octoCl _i Hit

Cii

CD
U)

Fr CD U
-

Di
Hit

Cl

H-

Cl CD

Ci
0 LI

Ni

-n 0 H 0

L
Co i.Ts

CD 0
FLLI it

H Di C)
C) U)

CD

ci)
U)

Cl H
U)

CD
CD
U)

C) 0 0 LI
H-

CD Cl

CD :3 Fr

Cl CD H HC) 0 Fr
C) HLI
h

CD Cl C
a)

Di Di Ft
Ci
U) it

H0
3 U) Ui U]
-,

hO
HLI

HH, H,

W o
0 H CD CD LI CD 0
* Co

C) 0 :3 Cl HFr H0 :3
0
H,

cii Co Ni H

Cl
C) CD LI

Di H CD
HLI H-

LI Di Fr H

0
-rj

o
CD U)
it H

H-

Co

CD
CD

rt
H lCD
Cl
U) U)

FL

Fr Di H
H
L<

Di Cl LI 0 3 Q H 0
LI

NJ Di
0

ji

Di Cl CD
LQ

LI
U) Dl
-

CD
U)

Di H HFr

HLI
LQ

D)

H CD CD U cii CD Co

CO

CD
k

HH

Iii
-,

C) o :3
C) 0 H Cl H0

H
U Ni J
FTJ

C) Di H LI <1 CD Cl
CD
U)

CD < o H Ci

H0 Di H
H

0 0 :3 LI CD H
z

<

CD
C)

Fr Di
H
hO

0
Di
-

< Di LI H0 Ci

CD
LI

Co
-.

<1 CD
Co CD X

Di

C?) Fr
CD Cl

U) H<

FLH-

Cl l
C) cii

CD

H Di C) Cl fl 0 Di Ci
it
L-

H U]

-o

o :3 CD
H-

C)

H Di H0
hO

Cl H<: HHFr

U)

:3 Di Cl Di
H3
L

o
C)

-CD Ci

LI HU)

hj

H:3 Fr CD LI Fr 0
0
U) :3

0 LI
CD 0 Ci LI C) CD

do

LI CD C)

3 FL-

Fr H<

U)

CD

H
CD 0
it FL-

ct

Ft H-

I
H
L<

CD

0
H,

CD Fr H0

0 Ci
it

HCD Cl

CD X Fr LI Cu 0 LI Cl H 0 Di LI Cl Ci Di H
CD LI 0 :3 CD

Ni CD H 0

C
L<

o LI

CD

LQ

LI o H

0 H LI CD C) Fr 0 LI

LI CD Fr CD Cl

C) Di Fr CD LQ 0 LI HC) Di H

J
C.)-

0)

Case 3:08-cv-00578-MA

Document 57

Filed 06/16/10

Page 15 of 34

Page ID#: 757

extended prerelease RRC placements is a reasonable interpretation of the statute. In sum, I conclude that the POPs policy requiring unusual or

extraordinary circumstances and Regional Director approval for RRC placements longer than 180 days is a permissible construction of 3624, B. and therefore is entitled to deference.

The November 14 Memorandum Is Consistent With 3621(b). Petitioners make similar statutory arguments concerning the

November Memorandum.

Petitioners argue that by requiring unusual

or extraordinary circumstances and Regional Director approval as conditions for extended RRC placements than a year remaining, the for inmates who have more Memorandum creates a

November

categorical limitation on the POPs statutory authority to transfer prisoners at any time under 3621 (b) As I concluded above, the POP has been given broad

discretionary power under 3621 (b) when making inmate placements, and has the authority to consider and additional unusual factors, or such as

Regional

Director

approval

extraordinary See Miller, 527

circumstances for placements beyond six months. F.3d at 75758. Moreover, See Pallew, the 2010 WL 986762 at *5 and

thoroughness

persuasiveness

of

the

BOP

policy is evident in the November Memorandum.

It is a permissible

interpretation of the statute, and therefore entitled to deference. See Skidmore, 15 323 U.S. at 140; Mead, 533 U.S. at 228; Tablada, 533

OPINION AND ORDER

Appendix 015

Case 3:08cv-00578-MA

Document 57

Filed 06/16/10

Page 16 of 34

Page ID#: 758

F.3d at 808.

That the BOP has decided to treat RRC requests like

other lower security transfer request, at the next program review, is reasonable and logically flows from the conclusion that the BOP has the discretion 541 to place an inmate in an RRC at any time.

Rodriguez, transfer staff. 1925225, RRC

F.3d at 1183.

Responding to what could be daily

requests

would quickly overwhelm and unduly burden POP 527 F.3d at 757; July 1, excess 2009) of
.

see Miller, *8 (D.Or. in

Calloway v.

Thomas,

2009 WL

Further, months

the requirement that require unusual or

placements

six

extraordinary circumstances and Regional Director approval aids in the POPs allocation of resources. shall consider the resources of See 18 U.S.C. 3621(b) (1) (BOP the facility contemplated)
.

Accordingly, the agencys interpretation of 3621(b), as set forth in the November Memorandum, is entitled to deference.

//// ////
Petitioners argue that the POPs requirement of unusual or 7 extraordinary circumstances for RRC placements beyond six months in the November Memorandum unlawfully imports a definition from the sentencing Reform Act. 18 U.s.c. 3582(c) (1) (A) (i) Under 3582(c), a sentencing court may reduce an inmates term of imprisonment if, after considering the factors of 3553, it finds there are extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting Petitioners argument is unconvincing. a reduction. To be sure, there is no indication in the text of the November Memoranda or P.S. 7310.04 that the POP has incorporated the definition from And, as petitioners acknowledge, the 3582 into that policy. BOP has not directed its staff to apply the definition in 3582 to RRC placements. (See Memorandum in Support (#48), p. 35.)

16

OPINION AND ORDER

Appendix 016

Case 3:08cv-00578-MA

Document 57

Filed 06/16/10

Page 17 of 34

Page ID#: 759

C.

The Program Statement Categorical Exclusion.

and

Memoranda

Do

Not

Create

Petitioners argue that the BOP rules have the practical effect of categorically limiting placements to six months or less, thereby frustrating the intent of the SCA and running afoul of Rodriguez. Petitioners assert this categorical effect is evidenced by the fact that no inmates at ECI Sheridan have received RRC placements longer than six months. I disagree.

The BOPs policies do not contain the same type of categorical exclusion struck down in Rodriguez. There, the BOP had eliminated

all inmates who had not served 90 percent of their sentences from consideration regulations for RRC placement. they, Rodriguez invalidated failed to those

because

categorically,

provide

individualized assessments under 3621 (b) Here, the BOP is providing exactly what Rodriguez requires
.

individualized placement decisions under 3621 (b) Memoranda individual and P.S. 7310.04 permit, through the

Moreover, the

demonstration of Miller, (D.S.D. 527 June

circumstances,

extended RRC placements. 2008 WL 2330221

F.3d at 75758; 3, 2008)

.

Yaeger v. Whitehead,

That the HOP is considering additional factors pursuant when making those placement decisions is reasonable, Indeed, Rodriguez recognized that the five Rodriguez, 541 and the

to 3621(b)

and thus permissible.

factors contained in 3621(b) were not exhaustive. F.3d at 1187. Thus, P.S. 7310.04,

the April Memorandum,

17

OPINION AND ORDER

Appendix 017

0
13)
(,)

H U)

cc
N)

H CD

CD N)

N)
U)

H
I-I

C)
CD
-

Di C) Ft
N)
CD

C) 0

CD U)

H CD
CO CD

Ii CD

H C)
Ft H

13) 0 U)

C) CD H Ft

Cl
CD
HU)
J

C) <1
H-

<
CD
HCD N) CD F-h

C) 0 U
CD

0 H U)
H HCD

Cl CD U) H Ft 0 U
U)
F-h H

0 H Cl CD H

0 U)

CD U)

C)CD

H CD
,

CD

o
U Di
Ft
*

CD
0
FCO

0 H H Ft
Cl 0

U< 0
Di U-

CD H UCD Cl CD
IC!)

CD C-i C

UCD H 0 CD
H

0 < CD

CD
(3

C C)

Q
Ct)

0 H Ct)
Di CD

I-H
-.

0
Ft
U)

U) H
-

HCO CD ClcD U) CD
Ft H-

H C) H CD

Ft UH U) 0
U) -<
-

C C
(31

-,

C) H U) CD
Ft Di

-.

0 t.. H CD
U 0 Ft

C)

0
HU)

rt

U) Di
H
(I) <

U-

Cu

L
CD

0
H Di

F-

0 0 0
F-h U.

Co
Di
U)

CO

C) Di Ft Cl) C) CD CD
H Di Ft

HU -C)

HU

U) U)

U
Cl
U)
U) CD Ft

C)
H

U)
.N) 0 (I)

C) 0 C) H Ft
C) C)
Ft

Di

< j..
ci1 Co Cl
Ft

cc
U)
H HC)

ID Dii UUUu,Ft i-b CD

II i CD
-

C) H H 0 0
H Ft Di
CD

Ft

Ft 0
CD

Di C) Ft U0 CD

w
ci[H
N) CD
CD

CD Ft
CD

U Cl C)

>
H
C)
0

0 0 Cl

U 0
Cl CD U) CD
H H
H-

CD

H H-

U Di
Ft LQ

C) 0
N

H-

H U 0

CD Ft CD
H HH-

U
C)
U) H-

Ft H-

Cl H
0

C-) Di

3
U
LQ

CO Di

cc
CD
H H-

CD
U)

C) H H-

Cl CD U-

H < CD
H i

CD

C) Di
<

-.

N)

Ft U UH U CD C) 0
U)
LQ

lCD
U)

H
CD

HHHCO

U)

o o
0

Di
Ft
Ft
H

Cl H C) Ft
C) HU) H-

H-

Cl CD H HII

0 U
,-

0 U 0
H H-

Cu Ft CD
* CD

Ft UDi

Ft 0
ij

Ci, 1 1 CD Cl 0
U)

--

1
HHU

Ft H Ft
H CD
N)

-.

U)

CD

C) H Cu 0
H

U) H Di
U)

UHU
CD

UCl CD CD CD

HU).

C) H CD Di Ft CD

CD Q. Cl H IH
C

2
0
I-h HH

0) Di CD U Di0
CD H

H-

U)

CD H CD H CD

Cl
CD

CD

CD H CD X
C) H
H U)
-

o
CD U)

Ft N) U)
H

U)
H

Cl
Cl

CD U CD

Cl CD Ft CD H

U 0 Ft

Ft CD

CD CD
U) C)

0)
-a

CD

Ft CD

CO *

U)

CD CD
CO
-

U U)
CD

H C)
U)
U)

CD CD Cl
Ft UCD

Cu
Di
-

13)
Co

IC!) lCD lCD

-

cc
Cl
HFt

0 H H
Q CD U
CD
.

CD
1W

-a

-S

CDC)
.

Ft UDi Ft

Di H IDi IH IH lCD Di C)
Ft C) Di

U)

hC)

C)
H-

U) Cl
-

U Di H
HU) CD N) U)

U)

o
U)

Ft CD Di H< UCD Cl UHDi U

U Ft Cl 0 CD
U)

x CllC)
HH

CD

0:, 0 (3

rj

coCD9

U)

Ft CD
LQ
-

cc

U)

0 H
Ft
C

Ft l)i 0 F-h
Ft

C)
H CD H

C) Cl
H-

H0 3

H0

0
H
N

0) Co CD
U

H-

U) C)
H
k< k<

H
H

< HCl C) Di H H-

ID
Cu

C) Ft 0

cc
UCD

CD

U)

U
CD Cl

CO

Cl

U 0 Ft

Ft H 0 Ft CDI-hU Ft CD Ft H U) HHFt U H F- Di Ft CD CO H Ft CD HUU) 0 C) CD H C) C) Cl 3 H CD Cl 0 H. CD Cl Ft < C) HCD C) HU) U) U Cl HCl U) 0 CD 0 U) Ft U Ii U U) CD Di N) Ft Ft F- CD 0 0 Ui, U) CD H

C) HDi H

Di Cl CD

0 H HC) Di H

[H

Cl

1 0) C

C-)

< WFtrFt-i
IC)

c C)
HC)
Cl)

N) C)

Ft
1s i

Di
0
CD Di

1w

cc C)

p.
0 Dii

CD

Ft

IDi

C)

lCD IC)
C) <
CD
Di
Ft C) C) CO N)

Di
C/) CD

IC)
CD

CD C) Cl

C)

(I)

CD CD
I

C)
Ft CD C)

Ft

CD

ICl lCD
H
H

0
-

Cl CD H
C)

C)

F
I
Hz1<
.

I-CD H

C)
Di
C) HH Ft C) CD U.)
I-j

H HC) Di Ft

IH Icn

w
cc Ft C) CD

Ft CD H Di Ft

0 C) H

Ii Cl CD Cl CD C) Ft

cC)
CD
0

Ft CD C) H 0 C) 0

Ft

C)
I

H
Cl)

0
Ft Di
.

Cl CD Ft CD H
Ft C) Di Ft

H CD LQ CD Ft Di Ft H0 C) CC) CD
Ft Di H CD C) Ft
H
U.)

H Di I Di

CD

>
C)

I
H

0 C)

Ft

H H-

C)

X Ft Di H < HCD Di p Cl C) H Ft CD Cl HDi Nc-tQDi

CD

--

0
Ft HH
.

lCD

C) Li H
-_

0 H w HO C)

Lc
H H HFt CD H CD H-

C)) C) N) Cl 01FtC)OCDLJ.CD CD Ft C)) HC) Li. Cl lCD Ft o CD Di Ft Cl HlCD HCD CD

Di

Di Cl

I-CD

3
1<

Di
H-

o
IDi
H-.---

Ft

H-HccIH H Ft HIH

())

Cl) o Ft

C)

Di Ft

I-I

CD CD

Ft
.

C) 0
H Di Ft CD C/) Dl
(/)
I-C

Di
Ft CD
hj Cl)
I-

HHCD H CD Ft

CD C) o <
Ft Ft Di Ft CD H H

C)

CD
b
Ft

Ft

1<
CD
<

Di
H 0
C/)

H H-

Ft

C) H

CD H Di Ft H

CD
C/I Ft

Ft

C)
=

CD H H- CD Di p. H CD Ft H- Ft H JCD1-1 C) OCDC) QH CDH-CDDJ Di 0 Di C) CD F-Ft C)HPClC) Ft -, <H-CD( I-ti N) H (ii H- 0 < CD C)H-cOClC) H-p HCflCCD CD C)0 DiHC)bjFtCJ) 0 I:-I CnC) H CDi0 CD H cd C) rt H C)) C)N). hj bClc .1 N)FtCD H-CD jClDJ H< iN). SCflJCD H Cl 1 i 01 CD CD 3 i dC)CD H Di C)d - C) ctCDH-< ON)] NCD 1ClcCl CD HCDDiClH. CD C) Ft l Di H CD
CD

C)C/) .-1--HWOC) I-CD

U) Cl CD Di
0 Ft
<

CD C) Cl 0 HCl 0 C)
0 CD C)

CD Cl

Di Ft
LH

Di Ft Ft

U. Cl
-

H Cl H0 Ft C) H C) Ft H

0 H

Di
C)

Di
0

CD
C/)

Cl)

CD CD H H-CDI-tiH XOFt I-CD C) Cl C) H- Cl H

H H U) H(--

cc
C) CD
Di Ft

Cl CD H
Ft
H0
-4j

Cl CD
CD

CD Cl CD C)) IC]) CD CD
H C) HC/)
-

N). Ft

OiC)

C)FtH. 1 FtC/Ic-

HC)

H-

C)C) C)Hp. N). C)CDCDCD

cc
I-CD H

Di
CD H
H-

H
CD Ft CD
H

CD
H

C)
Di H CD
H HC)

CD Cl)
Ft

CD
)

c
Ft H Di Ft 0

Ft C) CD
I-ti

o
Cl H0 C)
CD
Cl)
-

CD

C)

C)CDHFt

H N) H
ui

CD

Cl)

cc
I
CD C)
HDi

Di cC)
C) Di
Ft Ft Di
N

3
Co
,j tCD
)

C)

ow
H-

H CD Ft C) Di

CD
C)

<
I

Ft
CD Cl W 0

C)

C) Di

Ft C)

CD C) Cl
C/I
.

<
.

CD H Ft C)
--

C) H
C)
C)

Di Ft

-.

CD CD

C)

C) Di C) HI-CD

p CD
c<

Cl Ft
-.1 01 01 I

ClC) . 0 , ccWH-O DiN) HC) 01 H -O0C)< FtO Ft FtctCl HCD CD C)C)I-CD

.

H-

0)

H-

CDC/IDi
Ft

cc H
N) C) C)
H

Di C) Ft H0 C) Ft HC)

j Di
C) H C)
.

cC)
0 H Ft
C)

H CD
CD Ft

C)

CD
-.

Ft

3
p.
Di

C)) CDI-xi CDCD

CD
C)
-..

IC) Di IFt IHIDi

Cl

FtH-CFtOFt

H
cC)
HFt Ft
1<

0
C) 0 H-

Ft H C) CD H

o
HH

CDC)CD Cl 1 iQ
IC/) lCD lCD C) 0 Ft

IC)

C) Di H Cl C) CD H

Di Ft Ft CD

Ft

U) Cl

C<2)

CD CO CD

Ic
0 C) H Di
.

C) N) C)
C/)

cc
cC) <

10 IH lCD
Ft H0 Di C) Cl
CD

U)

LD

CD

C)
CD
U) C) I

.1

Q
Cl H
-

10

CD

N)

IC)

C/I Ft

01 -

H-

Di 2:
it
U)
LiDi

Di W
CC)

hj

1(J)

it

hd
Di

0
CD Li C) CD
Cl) C)

NJ CD C U) U N)

C) CD
LI

U)

a -iDi LI

a
lCD HCD
U) C)

lCD
CD
CD C) Cu UT

C) CD
-,

< Di H

H Fi UT

CD
Li
U) LI

LI Li H CD <
C)
)-(J

it C) Di it CD it it 0
hO H

II

Li b H HU)

0
H-

co
CD
it 0 d C)
Cu Cl) Dl U) UT

H-

a
H 0 C)

C) 0 it H C) CD

a a
OCD
i_I.

a
U)
a

0 CD C)
c-i-

it HC) H-

< Di C) C) CD

C OD C) C C
C),

o
CD CD
i-j

CD C) HCD

Li CD CD
U)

a
Di
LI
U)

it C) CD HDi it H-

o
it H LI CD

a
lCD
I__&.o 0 C)

it C)

a cnW
H

CD -i U)
CD
4s

Di C) it

U) C)

U)

NJ

h LCC)

c
C)
H U) CD

C) 0 CD
U)

co
LI 0

Cl

-.

CD

co
c-iF-I
-
-.

WLI
H

C) CD
LI

HC)

C)

a
C) it
HC)

Di C) U) Hit HCl)

CD CD Di C) U) it

0 2:1

-,

o
d
LI
H CD Di
UT

O 1 K) H

t, Li CD
0 LI
Lf)

() CD Di
U)

a
P
Di LI CD

Di

CD

H CD U)

(ii (.31 WCt

0 C,

ID

a
U)

CO Co Co

NJ CD CD

NJ

C)

Li
H CD Hirj

CD
it

CD C) it it
U) H

CD

o
CD
LI

Di hO
K)
hO

Li LI Di H

CD

B
I

cxl

a
HLI CD I Di C) C) CD Di LI
UT

0 UT
U)

Di
NJ

C) 0 C) CD LI

H CO CO

Cu C) U)
C) LI

it

lo
ILI Di

Li

a
Di H
CD
CC)

U)

Di H
Di

CDL

it Li
LI
-

it
CD

a
CD CD Di <
CD LI F(I)

a Ii a ILI
Di

LI 0 hO LI HDi CD C)
C)
k<

Di
CD

LI CD C) Li HLI CD

91

Di
Ii

LI

Li
U)

w
CO

a
C&)

CD Ct ..
H HU)

CD 0. C 0)
CD H 0 LI CD

H Di

C) IN
-

H HC)
Dl

H 0 LI Ct hd
LI 0 LI CD

it U)

0) CD CD
<

Li
LI

-,

Di

< H
LI Li
H
Di H CD H
Cl)

Di C)

a
CD

H CD U) H-

d CD LI

C
it CD LI HCD CD LI

Li
H NJ IC) Di

CD
CD
U)

CY CD H 0 LI

H U)

CD C)
Di C) U)
-

C)
H CD Di

a
it

a
U)

hO

Li H LI
LI 0 Li
CC)

LI CD Q Li
H-

LI CD

z o
a
.

CD CD CD H
CD Di it HC)

0 LI

CO

CD

-t a
HC)

<

it C) CD
Di
LQ

C) HCD H
U)
-

a
a
CD
H,
-

Ct I-i. O

IC)

LI CD
U)

CD H
CD

(p
CD Di it Di CD C)
it

CD N) C 0 -h

Li CD
LI NJ
I 0)

LQ

Di C)
j

CD C) C)
H

CD CD
C)
H, F-,

a
Di LI

C)
Di Di C)

C<

()

a
Di

-,

H-

CD
CiQi

Di H
t-,j

H CD
-

U) Li LI CD
cH-

Di
CC)

U) Li C)
C))

H (i

a
-:1

CD

hO

H0 C) HH C

a
NJ
CC) CO CC)

CD
U)

hO Li
H
F

a
Di it CD
-,

hO CD LI H0 Li O H HCl)

H 0 H H 0

C)

o
a
it 0 HC) C) CD

Di LI CD
CD C) C) < it Di C) it
H<

C) 0

- CD CO CD

ID
it

CD C) 0 H it 0 CD C) CD Ct

H Ui HU)

it

H H .i H

HC) HH C) C Di a H CD

I 0) N)

N) FU)

I-I

d
U) -I CD
Ft H
<

hd

i CD ) HU) pi C/)
<

N) Ft
01

hC)

0
CD Cl) CD

CD hi 0 HHCD CD Cii C)
p.

C) 0 FCl) U) U)

U) Di Ft Ft C) CD

C) 0 0
CD
l

N) C) C)

C)
CD

HC)

H-

U)

C) Ft
(ID

C) 0 C) Ft Di hi Ft 0 CD H0 C) U) C) CD hi CD

-I CD -Q C) H U)
Ft Cii

0 01
H

CD Q C) HfrI CD Ft

U) t

C) -< Di
t

HCD hi CD H CD
CD

d CD

C)
hi Di H

CD C) C C d c
U
U)

C) 0 Ft HC) CD

0 C)

Z Di
CD Ft CD C)
U)
h

fr-I

Di Ft Di C) Q
C) i
c-I-

P
CD
hi HCD HCD
U) <

0 C) Cl CD C) Ft Ft H0 C) CD C) C) < HFt H0 0 0

0
Cii Di hi CD Ft

Cl PDi Ft
H H

Cii CD CD
H
-

Di H CD
U) Ml

Ft Di Ft CD

Z
Di hi Ft Di
p.
LQ

0 LC) 0 0
U)
Hp.

0 C) CD
U)

Cl hi CD Ml CD C) Ft C) C C) CD 0 Ft 0 0
C) H-

U) 0 CDJ C) hi Di C) Ft HCD CD C) Ft

Cii C) P

CD hi U)

d hi 0
Ft C) CD

Ft C) Di Ft
C) 0 C) Ft Di HCD hi 0 Cl 0 H
p.

C) W Di 0 Ft CD Ft 01 Di Ft
-

U) hi CD P HFt 0 H I Cl Di <

CD Di C) HFt Di Ft H C) CD CD Ft CD 0 H
U)
-

CD HFt C) CD hi 0 hi C) CD

C)
H-

hi CD H CD
01 01

0 C) CD
D

Di

hi

Ft CD hi

LQ

C) hi

Ft HC) CD

hi CD
U)

Ft CD C) CD Di hi Di Ft CD U) Di U) hCCDCDp.Ft

U)

Di C) Ft

Cii

CD CD
-

Di CD Ft U)
Ml 01 H,

x
CD U) hi H0 H U) Cii H H C) Di H Q hi

0 Ft H-

CD

H Ft

Ft hi H H

hO

CD

C) 0 Ft HC) CD

-n = CD
H HH-

Cii C) C) CD 0 CD i. H-

01 C)

U)

H-

CD

Ft C) CD Di CD CD

C) Di CD C) C) Ft 0

)
-

C Cl
0 0 hi Ft CD
H
-

Ft 0 hi 0 CD CD
0 U)

Ft U)

0
H,

Di hi Di Ft CD H

Ft 0 hi Cii CD
H-

hi Di C) Ft H0 Ft H Ft HDi

C)

p.

<

CD C) Ft HC) 0 CD C) Ft

w o
-,

CD hi CD hi Di CD hi CD
LQ

C)
<
H

Ft

01 ai

Di U) H CD Di Ft

CD

CD CD

Di
U)

U) C) HFt CD C)

O
Di
CD Ft CD Ir lCD I
r-

C)
0

CD
H

CD hi CD
p.

Ft hi H CD hi CD U) 0 0

hi CD iC

Ft H CD

CD Ft CD 0 Di Ft CD
p.

0 Ft Ft Di Ft hi CD

3 C)
C)
Ft 0
LD

Ui

hO Q H HHCD

CD C) CD
U)
-

Ft Di Ft CD 0 hi CD U) C)
Di

Ft Di C) HC)
N

Di

o
Di
CD

hO hi CD Ft H< CD
U)
U)

HhI CD

CD

C) <
C) HDi
hI hi

1W hi C) H CD Ft hi HCD
U)

p.

lCD 0
hi

Di hi < Di Ft H0 C)

CD

C) 0

CD

C)
Di C)
p.

o o
U) Di <1 CD CD
U)

lChi D

Ic I IC)
Ft
-

0 Ft 0 Ft

0 tY CD hi

CD hi CD

Ip.

IC) Ic Ihi

5
0 hi Ft 0

Di Cl < Di C) C) CD

CD C) Ft
c

Case 3:08-cv-00578-MA

Document 57

Filed 06/16/10

Page 22 of 34

Page ID#: 764

1.

The BOP did not establish good cause to forego advance notice and comment when issuing the October 2008 regulations. an agency must determine unnecessary or contrary Notice and

To invoke the good cause exception, that notice and comment is impracticable, to the public interest.

Bohner, 243 F.Supp.2d at 1176.

comment is impracticable when the agency cannot follow 553 (b) and execute its statutory duties, and is unnecessary when the

regulation is technical or minor. 1484.

Riverbend Farms,

958 F.3d at

The agency must include this finding and a short statement

of its reasons with the new regulation at the time of publication. Id. In this case, the HOP expressly invoked the good cause

exception.

Here,

the BOP published the regulations on October 21, immediately, Reg. and invited When

2008 as interim final rules effective the public issuing to submit interim comments. rules, 73 the Fed. HOP

62,440-443. the

the

provided

following

commentary: The current regulations on community confinement are not only inconsistent with regard to the time frames articulated by the Second Chance Act, but also conflict with the goals of the new law by articulating a categorical exclusion that would preclude individual determinations. Adopting these rules through the normal notice-andcomment procedures would not be consistent with the short statutory timeframe provided for implementing these regulatory changes. Requiring formal noticeandcomment procedures would be contrary to the public interest in this case, particularly because the revision of these 22 OPINION AND ORDER

Appendix 022

Case 3:08-cv-00578-MA

Document 57

Filed 06/16/10

Page 23 of 34

Page ID#: 765

regulations will provide a greater benefit for inmates, through the possibility of a greater community confinement timeframe than that contemplated under the current regulations. Because this change is responsive to mandates in legislation and is interpretive in nature, we find that normal notice and comment rulemaking is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Therefore, to best comply with Congresss mandate that the revised regulations be timely issued, we issue these changes revising subpart B of 28 CAR part 570 as an interim final rule. We will accept comments to this interim final rule and consider and discuss comments received during the comment period in our final rule document. 73 Fed. Reg. 62,44062,443 (Oct. 21, 2008). The BOP submits that when the statutory deadline is combined with the potential benefit of increased community confinement time, there is sufficient public interest to satisfy the good cause

exception.

I disagree with respondent. cites no authority for its contention that the

Respondent

public benefit to those affected inmates in this instance justifies foregoing notice and comment. To be sure, the Ninth Circuit has

narrowly interpreted the good cause exception, waiving notice only when delay would do real harm. Buschman, 676 F.2d at 357.

Moreover, to the

cases indicate that the BOP has been required to adhere and comment Paulsen, requirements when issuing regulations (finding that BOP it was to

notice

affecting inmates. did not

413 F.3d at 100405 and failed to

establish good cause,

explain why

impracticable

or unnecessary to
.

solicit public

comment prior

issuing 1997 RAP regulations) F.3d 23 408, 42122

th 6 (

See also United States v. Cain, 583 cause did not exist for

Cir.

2009) (good

OPINION AND ORDER

Appendix 023

O
IC) Q HFt Ft
LQ Ih ht,

IQ) CD C) CD

U) CD

1j Ft 0

CD

Ibj I

U)
LQ

Di CD C) HU)

U)

I)
0
F-

H H-

U) Ft Cl)

0 LH
h-h

H 11 0 0 C) Ft CD

hC) h

I< I

hj

C-) CD
CD

C)
Cli CD
H

Ft
II

I
10) lCD IDi C) H
C) CD <

CD

II

0
U)

IC) itt IF-lCD H

0 0 Cl 0 hI CD

< 0 C) Cl

)
C)
-) -,

C) H0 C) 0 < HCl CD CD CD
-

Di Ft Ft 0

0 -d
CD Di
C)

H
CD U)
I

U) C

lCD
HDi Di
-

Di H
U) CD U)
I-- Di 1
C

L 0
Di Ft HCD
Di F-h
-

CD U) Ft

0 hI CD

IC)
C
LC)

C)

HC) C) hI CD Di U) CD Cl Di C) Cl Di HC) 0 HDi 0 CD Cl

F C

I-h

HHC)

Di

0 C) Di C)

C)

CD
U)

H
M F-

HU) Ft hI Di Ft H0 C) Di Ft H C)

C CJ1

C) o Ft
HH

IC)

Di Ft Di H

Cl Cl
H H HH-

HDi Di H
<

CD

LQ

L-

o
-

U) Cl CD

CD FF-i Q 0 HCD
Ft H it
-

C) H Di FCD C) 0 Ft CD F-

IC) lCD IFFt I. CD

Di

FCD Ft
M H-

LQ CD C) CD FDi H

>
Ft 0
it HH

CD

o
HFt
LQ
-

FFt
FH

C) CD
<

Di HCD C) H H Ft

ICl lCD
C) 0

Di C) Cl

Cl
H <

H C

Q C)
CD FCD H-.

H 0

I-h < HC)

F 0 Di C)
H

C) C) Di 0

C)

IC) IF-lCD ICl

0 C) C) Ft
U) H F-h

C) HN CD Cl <
Ft CD Ft

Di FCD Di C) Di C) CD HDi HDi

C

-,

Di

C)

F-Ct) C)
H-

3
CX) Ft

CD CD HF-

U) CD

o
Cii C) C) CD C) Ft HC) Q CD

Cl
H CD CD
H H

CD CD C) H HC

CD C) Ft

C) H Di C) CD Di HFt
Di
i

CD
CO

U)

Ft CD FCD

CD

)<

C) Ft

-r
CD C) HU) U) H C) it

H-

Ft

FC) H CD

C) 0
Ft

CD

Ft

Ft
HFt
D

H-

Io
U) Ft
F-

C). C 0
HCD HHC)
iC)
-

Di

0
-

U) C) CD Cl U)
U) U)

HF-

Ft H0 C)

Ft

Cl Cl
Di
:o o

0 CD
HO
-

i
H LO

CD H HC) 0 CD
C

C) 0 Ft
CD

0
C

Ft HCD

Cl HCl
CD X 0
U)

Cl CD Ft Di

C) H Di Ft H0 C)

Di Cl Cl HFt H0 C) Di
H

t5 H CD
-.

Di C) Cl

CD FCD Di FCD C C)

C C

C)

Cl
0 CD CD Cl

w
Cl aj
H

U) 0 HU) Ft Di Ft
C

C) 0 Cl Di
CD

-U CD C) C) Ft
CD Ft 0
U)

H
HCl
-

CD H H0 Ft Di Ft 0
F-

Di C) 0 Ft CD

CD C) Ft HC) C) 0 C) Ft FDi FF-h HC)

H

CD

IC)
Ft HDi H
CD Ft Di Ft H
HU)

H 0 C) 0 0 Cl
C)
F-

F FH H-

Di C)

r-.,)
CD

CICD
H

Ft H < 0 FX

0
-

Ft CD Cl

F-

U)

CD Cl HU) O
[-j

C) CD

Cl Di

U) CD CD C) CD
U) U)

Ft CD

0 C) H Cl 0
o

H C) CD

0 CD FH

61)
C)
H-

Cl CD 3 HCD
CD X
HC C

U) U)

H-

0 0 Cl

CD Di CD CD
U)

U)

I
Ft
Di C)
U) Ft

lCD iCl
H
U) C)

0
F-,

CD 0 Cl C)
Ft Co

CD

U)

C) U)

C) C)
H

U)
U)

C) b H <
CD

Di C)
H<

I Ft IDi
H0 H C) Q CD CD C) Ft C) CD C) CD CD H HC)
U) C)

<1

U) 0 HC) C) FC) CD CD C) C) <

Q
IFt CD
CD

0 3 Di H

Co

LC)

lU)

CD C) Cl CD F-

C) CD C) 0)

Co
o

:i

(-n
0
H Co Co Ft CD
LQ U-

Di -J CD Cn H
CF

CD F-

CD

CD

Ir

CD Fr
Di

IC)

C)
(I)

CDH-U1H H Co CO Co hI Co Co CF

OH CFCD

:3 0 C
1 H H-

Fr :3 Di ci

lo
<

IC) C C
Co

Co Fr Di Fr

1:3
HFr CD

Fr :3
H CD Di :3

Fr 0 CF 0 Fr CD

:3
CF C
Fr
LQ

CF C O H H-

Cl
Fr HCD

CD

o
-

CF

Cl
Di
C) CD H
1<

0 Fr HC) CD

I-I

__b, IC
Fr
Co

Di :3

Fr :3 Cl)
HCo

Di Fr HFr
CD

Fr CD 0 Fr

Fr Cu tD H HCO :3

IC H Fr

Fr 0 hi <

H H-

Cl
:3 H:3

0 H CD Fr HDi H

6
C!)
ci

Fr Di C) Fr

CO

Cl CF
<
(

C H Di ci H0 :3

lCD Cl
0 0 Di

C) 0

0 CF

c:3 Di CD H 0 CO CD

ci
hi

Fr
CD CO

LC) 0 0

FrF-C) Di 0 :3 Cl Fr(DCF H-CO

C)

lD CD CD :3
CD H C)
Dl

Cl
F-

Di Fr CD Co CF CF
:Dl
-,

Cl
CD

Co

C 01 .1

CD

H- t Di

CD 3 Di Co co
C) CF
LQ

HFr H Fr CD
-

0 H CD

CF
C

CF
Ft hO Co

CD Di Cl H H :3 CD

Di
C

Di

:3 Di

0 HFr 0 H:3 CD

Di

Fr

ID H
<: LC)

CF CD Di Cl
<:

H Di HFtFr H-0

0 0 0 FrCl

HHCD

Cl Cl
Cl
Fr
H Fr H0 H Di Fr Cl)
C/) CO

CF Cl 1(1) CD
ui

cn CO

C) 0

CD C) HFr HC)

Cl
HCo Co CO
-,

H- Di

ct CD
H0 Co CD C) CD

Co

C) Di
hO

(-tCl
o

C) Di
Di Fr CD
M Co

Fr 0 H

0 C-) C
o

C 3

< ClCD Co

I-I

0CD
H:3
F\)

Di Fr CD Cl

H HDi

lCD lCD I
H

H CD H
Di :3 C) CD

CD
D
01

(nc-I
C) 0
F
-

Di Fr HCo Fr HCD Fr Di HFr

Cl Cl
Di Fr CD H3 CF

CD CD Cl CD Cl

10
HFr

-I :3 Cl
0 0 HC) CD
hO

:3-CF C)
HFr
LQ

Cl

Di

CDCDCD Ftc-I O H- Di CD H CD CD
Co

C) :3 HFr CD

CD H

ct

H H H

CD X C) CD CF Fr H0

Cl
CO

Fr 0

C) Di H
HCo Co

Di Cii H Fr CD

I1 CD 0.

C
CD CD
1:3)

C CD

Fr CD

C)

CF H HDi
Fr Di Fr

Cl
-

Di H H Di
HFr HDi H CD
CO

0 CDH C) CD

CD

0 H CD -

Cl
Fr 0
Cl)

C
CF
Fr

CF Fr Di c-ICD Di HFr 0 Cl C) HH

H CD C H

Di :3 Cl 0

0 H Fr HFr

CD Cl

H CD C

0)
C

CD

Fr CD

3 C) ODJct HFr

0 Di

C Cl
CD Di Co
-

CF Cl Di CO CO

CD CD X 0 iC) Fr

:3 C)

Di

t8i t2

? Fr
0

C) 0 H Cl

Fr H-

Di <

CD

Fr

-Q 0

:3 Co
CO
LQ

Co

Fr HCo

CD 0CHH H0 ctCD C) DCD (n CF

C/)

CD

--Cl
Fr
-

Fr 0
H

CD CD

C)
CF

Di

CO

CF

Fr C

(0 CD rJ 01 0 -4,

C CF CF
Cl

(4)

Cl
0)
0

H- Co C ci H 0 CD 0(1) H COO H CD

C
H

0 :3 Fr CF
-

Fr CD CD H H C Fr CD Cl HCD C) 0 H

Cl) Fr Di Fr C Fr 0 H

-ci Cl
HCO

CDH,

Di
1
-

c-I0 Fr CD

Di H 0 :3 CD
:

Cl
0)
z

CD
Fr HH H Fr 0 0 0 c-I0 H,

:3 H
H0 :3 Co

Di

Cl HCl
0

C) 0 :3 C) H C

CD Di Cl H H-

CD Cl

H Fr
<:

ZJ
Cl
i

Co 0 CD Fr Ci I
Fr Frr

Fr Fr CD H

CD

O <

Di :3 Cl Di Fr CD

CD

c-h 0

0) 1

C-)
Ft H

N)

H-

0
lj

a a

io a. a.

X
Di hrj
h
a

ca 0 Di

ci

ci

CD D.
h (I)
j

ci

Di Cl

It
a

10

i 0
I-

Ia.
IhCD
h ct Ft
a. Cx

Di CD
CD Cx
Ft

a.
0
t

a
CD

CD 0

CD
h F-I CO
<
-

HCD
lF-

0 hd CD Cx

N) Cl

ICl
I(T)
Cx

1<
IF
CD
j

d
Di CD CD
(l)

HFt a. H C)

F-

Di
0
(1)

Di Ft CD

h-i
CD
fr

i.)
CD Ft
a.

HI

CD Cl Ft

Ft

H <
-i

H Di

a
0 Di
Di Lx) Cx

a
1(1)

a
I
H-

HI

HFt Ft hd
-

Ia
Ci Ft 0
-

Di 0 CD CD Di NJ CD
t

a
0

CD

a.
Ia

Ft

0 CD

Ic

lt

a
Ft CD Ft Hc

OD
C)

IC)
CD CD

CD
Di Di Ft Di

CD 0 H H Di H Di r
H

Di
CD CD

Ft

a a
0
CD H-

t-]

C C C))

Di

i-CD CD

OD

CD H-

0
Cl)

Cx

CD Di Q CD

CD Cx

O Di
H HCD 0
C)

0 0 Di
Cx
(a)

Ft CD hi HCl CD H0 0

HH H

Di hi CD

a
CX)

a
Hhi Cx Ft CD Ft Cx
Hi

lCD
a
U)
Cx
W

Cl CD 0 Cl Di Ha
F
,

Ia
Di

a
a
Cl
Di
Ft

a
HI

I
c a

HCx

Ft Cx 0 hi Di Ft

a.
Cl
LQ

Cx

Ui

Di -h

Di a
Cx

a
Ft
Cx

CD

CD
rl
Cx

Ic a
Di H CD
Ft
-

Di

hi

Cl
10
Cx

Cx

Cl CD

Cci CD

Cl
CD
hi

a
a
0 Ft 0

3
a
Ft Di Ft CD Ft Di cl CD

CD
ci

H-

a
Di Di
Cx

a.
Cx ci HLX)

H0 0 Ft HCD Ft Di HCD HFt CD Di Di

h
h Ft

Ia
CX)

a a a d

Cl CD H CD

a.
-

I H-

Ft CD hi H-

Di hi Di HCl CD H H CD CD H
HI

1<

Di H CD 0 Cl H d Ci H

0 hi Cl H-

a
H <

a a a i Cl
Di
(a)

a
H0

CD 0 Ft Ft CD hi HN

<:

Di Ft Ft

LQ

Cl a.
Cl hi Di Ft Cx Ft Di H CD
-

0 H-

CD I hi CD X CD H
-

o
R
0 Ft Ft

Ct
ci-)

-Ti

k<

:
a
CD Ft H-

CD Cl hd 0

CD

P CD

-,

a a
CD
FLx)
Lx) aCx

a
Di H (I

Cl Ci
N) C) C)

Ft

CD H H-

Cl
Di Ft 0 Hhi

0 CD Cx
FUi

a.
CD Cl I:N)

a.
Di IH Di
H Di
Ft

L
hi 0

Di Ft H0

CD
0
Cx

LQ

Cx

Di

a
10 IDi

Cx

a
Cx

H hi CD
-

fl

O
0

ICi I Cl
CD Di
Cx

Ci H-

CD

k
0 CD

H IHI

Mi

a
Cl
cci 0 0

) CO CD

lCD hi Cx

Cl
Cx
N)

CD

lo Ia a.
H-

a 0 a
10 CD H-

Cl

Ft

Cl a
H

Cl
l-

[1
Ft

a.
Cx CD 0

0 rt HDi Ft CD Cl

0.Q. CDW a (tj CD

0)

a
a.
CD Di

a. Ia
LC)

CD

Di

0 a
Di
Ui F-

NJ

Cx

Di

Cl

ct Ci
I-i

0 H HFt Ft
C)

HCl CD hi Di

a.
CD CD Di
*

a.
a
0 Ft Cl ci
H-

CD
HI

I 10 ICi lCD Ihi

ICx lCD

a.
Ct

0 0

1<

a
Di

0
<

Di Di

Ft HCD

0 0 Ci

Cl Di

a
H LCi CD
-

Cl

a
Di
LQ

Di t1 1
Mi F-I

CD

Cx

a a 1< Ft CD
Fl Ui

a
CD

Cl
HCx

a a
H

a
CD
C))

ui Cx

CO CD Ci Ft Ft

Cl

ED a
CD co

Di

Ci H Di Ft H0
Cx

a
CD

a.
CD

a a
Cx
C)

hi Ci H CD
<
Cx

CD 0 Ft

W(D ct i-
<

Di Ft
HI

Ft 0 0 hi

hi CD

HH

0 hi

CD OD

hj

[01

5
Q

hO (-I-

0
0
C,)

Di

Ft CD
U 0 H-

CD H 5

01
<

CO

H CD Di

U 0 H-

0 H

C) HH C)

HFt Di Ft

o
-

C) H CE) Di
H cC) C) I

W 0 hO
H H 01 01

CD
C)

H-

HU [C)

C
HU Ci) H

0 hO 5
C,)

Ft CO

C H CD

CD H

CD IH lCD IN

cC)
H CD
hO
-

C) Ft Di H Di C) C) HCO C) H CD

C
C-)

HI

H-

Ft Ft CD
C)

H CE) hO H CD Ft CD

U
W
CD H
Cl)

0 Ml CD i

W 0 hO
W Ft 0 S 01
.

Ft Di U H
HN

Di H CD Ml C H

H H

5
HH F0 H

CD HHHH U CD H H CE)

Di
HCl)

CO
co

HU Di HCD Ft HU < HU cC)

H

C) 0 U Ft H E)i H c<

CD
hO
0 CD

U Di H Ft Di U

C C I

H-

Di
H)
1< hO

CL CT) Di Ft
0
hO

C
H H)

Di CD CD HHDi F-I)

HDi Cl) H-

Ft Ft CD H U 0 U Di CO H
x

CD X HH Di 0 H CL HU Di H H CD Di CL

<
-

H CD

CD H Di H-

CD

H)

H)

C)
HCD H-

Ft Ft CD
Di
H

CD H Ml
0
H)

0 H

CD Ft HHH0 U CD H CO Di U H

CD

Ft
C) H

>
0

H0
CO CO

U Di CD
CO CO

HCL H-

CO

Ft Ft CD
CD
Hcc

H CD U
CD

U Q H 5

ci
C)
C

H C) C

i
CO

HFt Di H-

q
H-

5
Ft U Di )
<

H CD

X Di
I

CD U C) Di HH0 U 0 U HCD U U Ft CD H
hO

Di

c H Cii

CD

H CD HH-

HHHH0 U CD H

Di H CD U C
HFt Di HCD H H HFt Di Hhi
N

H Ft C CO
-

S
H Di H

hO
CO
-

HCO

Di

CL
HU H0 H Di H
CO CO
CO
-

CL
Di U
Ft
H)

Ft HCD H HDi Ft HFt CD H

H H Ft CD

C) H HHCD H HDi

C) H CD HH0 U Di H CD

C U C CO 0 Di H

C) H CD HH0 U H Di U CL Di

3
CD D H H0) ---I

CO Ft Di U C) CD CO

L.
lCD IH

CD

IU
-

HFt CE)

Ft H Di U CO H CD H

LD

-n
H C H CD

H-

p.
Di U
HCD

Di Ft

U H-

Ft CD

Ft

U Di Ft HU

H Di U 0
Di C/) Di HH
c

0 < CD

CD 0 C

a,
S

CD

Di
LQ

C Di H H

C)

hlj

5
CD
-

H) 0
Ft Di H H H X I

CD < CD H

H CD Q C CT) CO HCii

C S
CD U Ft CD H
CO

Cii

hO Di H HHCL CD HCD H
C)

Di H
Cl)

--

CE)

CO

CO H0 U

C p.
HU < H Di H HU CD

Ft H Di 0 H 0 U Di H hO CD
0 H Di U CL Di HH CD
C)

C Ft CO HDi U HCO

H
CO 01 0) H-H Cii Di

CO

CD H

<

-U

Di cC) CD U
C)

CD
<

5
Ft CD
Di

CD HCT)

C)

HU

p.
Di U HH
C)

H CD Q C HH CD

0 H HCO

HCD

CD CO

CO

hi
M CL

H 01 H H 01

ct

Ft CD

5
CD U HCO CO CD

H-

hO

Di U CL Ft Ft Di Ft Ft Ft

Ft
CD

H-

CD N) 1 0

H0 H
Di
hO

hO S
CO C)

Ft CD HFt CD H HH Ci) H
0 H

cC) C Hci CD H HU CD

C
CO

H0 U

CD U Ft

U)

H
CD
0

H-

CD

HU

CO

>
0

Di

CD
0
CO C)

U
CL

H C)

S
Di H-

CD H0 H
CO H

HCD
CO

Di U
HU
Cii H C)

U C Ft
H CO HDi Ml Ml
H

()

C S C
U
< Di H

H
-a

CO

Ft Di U

CO

U
H

HFt

Di 0

CD

0) H

hO

HCO

o
CD
-

CD

HDi

S
C)

a
C C
CO

5 5 C
CO
CO <

-.

HCO
-

H HFt Di HCD

H) H)

H 0
CO

Ft
l

lrj

CO

CD

CO

HDi U C) CD

C
CO

H-

HDi

lo
p. 0 CD Di
H0
H U

01

ci
Di H
CD
H)

C) HH H0 Ml

H Dl

Ft

Di
CO

HFt Di Ft

Di H CD

H 0

p. 0

0 H Di U p. Di

Ii

CD H H <

Ft H 0 Di CL

CD

Ft

Di Ft

a,

Co

C)
0

NJ Di
h-

Co

C)
a

Di
Di CD Ft

IC)
o

dC) Q CC) Ft C) CD CD
H

Di C) Cl C)
LQ

H IHH-

Ft C) CD

IC)
Irt
CD Cl CD C) CD

LQrt

Di C) C) 0
HH Ui -] H

h i-

C)

tJ HFt 0
ii
-j

C)
I-H

I
J
H

o
H
P)I-

tDi DiH Di
H-

Di Ft CD CD C) C)

CD X CD 1 C)

I
D.
H
N) H CD NJ

d
0
w H

Di C) CD C) Di C)
H

CD CD Ft

I lo

F
Di H
Ft
Di
CD

IIj
Di 1 CD C) Ft C) CD C)) CD

I-H

II

Di
CD

CD

Q.CD < Ft CD Di
H
HH LO

C)

I-H

Cl Di C) C) CD

oW

C) CD Cl
h
-

PJo
Ft

Hct
-

Cl CD II
-

I lCD fr
C) 0
C)
C) CD

Hi

Ft

C Di Ft CD CD

C) Di d

Di
-

0 Di
I-

0
C) H-

Ico
W

Z C)
H-

CDCD CDClCD Ft Di0 FtH-C) CDFtCl C)CD CDH-C) C)C)ct IDi IN CD

CD
a

Di H
II CD

it

Di
H

CD C)
%)

0 <

O U)
H

Di Ft CD Cl
Ft
Di I-H

H-

C) Di
it

H0
Cl
C)

0
HFt H CD
CD it

H-

C)

H-

0
H 1

I p 0
CD H-

C
CD C)

o i C) Dii
Di
-

H-C) DiC)O C)FtC) ClCDct hCD

CD

l CD Cl CD CD Di H
I-

CD Di H CD HFt HC) Di
CD

NJ C) C)

it rt-

Ft
U)

Cfl

Ft CD

Di C)

Di Ft Di
Di
CO. it

Q CD
Cl

C)

Cl 0 H 0 C) Ft C) CD U)

3
H-

Cl
Di Ft Ft CD H

CD

Di

Di
H

CD Di

CD Ft H0 C)

Q Di i Ft
CD
(1)

Di
CD

CDDiCl HCD 0 IFt DiClC) C)H-Di ClCD Ft DiC) CD

h

O
C) Ui

Cl
H

CD HCD P1
-

< Di
t rj

Di C) Cl

CDCDCD I-FtC) CDH-Di H

it

C) o Ft
CD Di <
CD CD

it

H U)

CD

Co

N)

CD

C)

HH

C)C)CD ODiCD Ftt

CD
c-i C)

Ft HC C)

CD

Di
H

X Di H Di H Di
-,

IC!) Di CD C) Di

= CD Cl C

(:3-)
S

CD Di
Cl 0 CD

CD

Cl CD H H

C) CiLC)CD

Cl
H U)

0
Hi

ZJ CD HC) Di

Ft Di 0 H HH CD Di
CD
CD

CD

CD C) C) < CD
CD

Cl CD CD H

() C)
Q 0 CD 0 0
c-i H

Ic-i

CDClO C)Diti FtC)

C)CD CD

C)
HCD
CD

Di CD
CD Cl 0 HC) CD C) 0

-<
Cl H-

LH Di 0

CD C)
Di

Cl
Di

0 Di
Cx)

C)

CD
Di
Hi

Cl CD

Di H

FtCD 0 d ClO Ft H- H

Cl
U]

CD C) CD Cl
-

HC)

-4

-I,

CDCDC)
HHi H ci-

Ft

CD o
Cl
cji FUi

z 0
I-I

L
0
it

CD
0
t

C) 0
CD
CD

C)HitCD
CD

CD

CD
-

I)

Cl
CD

H-

Cl H C)
U)
Hi

C)

H CD CD

CD CD
c-i

IC)
0
C)

Ft

HC) CD CD

-dH-CD

Di

I-

CD C)
Cl
c-i

-CDDi C) H Di
H

C)
-

c-i

CDCDt

Ft Di

Cl

hO

CD 0

HFt

C/)

HLQ

Di 0 Cl Di CD Di C)

CD CD U)
Co

CD

CL) 0

C) 0 Ft (t Ii Di I
1<

0 H
H-

5
H c-i

it

Di HC)

H HCD Di Ft
h

CO

C)

HCl
0 CD

HCD Cl CD

C) CD CD H

<

Cl

C)

<

Ft 0

Ui

CD

0
CU

N) cc

p.
N) j H I-C H

Di hd

cc
C)
C) H C)

IH

Di cn
CD
.

LC)

HCl 0
H

CD C) t C-n
-

ct C) Di

C C) 0H H H-

Di C) CC
0
H HU)

C) HCl

IC)
Di Cl cC)

<I Di
C) H-

HU) Di C) Cl

CD
()

Cl U) Cl Ci. CL:hC CD H- rt H- CD F- CD hC ICl) CD U) Di h U) LOC) 0 C)rtC)H]CDdcDC) ClH1t3CD C)Difr-tC)O-JCDCD

Dl H CD

Di
N)

0 C)C)Cl
<

CC H
H]

OCld<H-CD Cl CD H

N)0 C)

Di
Dl

H]

CD H CD < Di C) Di
Cl C) C) C)

I
cC)

H H H

0 Ci

CD
c-n
-J

H-

oz o
ID

0
cc

i.
CD
Cl

I
Di p Di Cl
j

H C) N) H Di CD Di
CD C/) CD

,
C) C) CD
3

Di Cl Cl

bj cc
U)

-< HCl 0 CD Ci H
cx

C)
Di

C) Di Di
0 U) Cl CD Di
H
Di

0
cOFCCl
II

CD C) CD Cl Di
I-C
hj

Di

--

CC Di
H

C) Cli DifrCU) C) .-I

.

ZrtH-Cl. C I-C CnH-CDC)CD p,c ODDJ (nODJ 0C)C) COp.N)HC)ctC)0 ct2iC)H I-c-t CDx) JH-CnCDCO h c3)Cl DiC)U) C)C)DictDiC)CDDJ0lCD C). H-0Q 0U)C)-<Cl COCC/) C(DU)C)N)C CD Jrt U) XCDClClH h cc -CCDCD CDU)CD C)HC)C)C) C)CD hi I C)H]C) HC) Di ri-N) LOCDcO -HCD 0C)OHCl CD < CD
H

DJaH

0 Di
H C) C) 0 HCC
H-

Di C)
--

Di

Cl Cl
c

CC U]H-C)H(DDi C)(D.LOU)CDHC CJU)

CDH0HCD CD C) Di

HCD

Cl
Cl
H-

H HCl ClcoiC)

C)
Q CD

Cco Cl

0C)LQrt

C) Cl

cc
CO

Ci Di
U)

Di
HU)

3
Cl H U) HH Cl cc

cc U) Cl- ct CD
C)
CD

HC) cC)

Di cC) CD C) Di CC

1
C C 0
HU)

CD

CD D

c<

C)

0 Ci
H hd
I-

C C Di
C)
-

CC HI-C

CD
U)
H]

CD CD
CC

Cl
--

CD X Ci c< Di
H

C) 0 C Cl
Di

-n

= CD CC
C) Hj C/) Cl

H Di 0

H C) <
H

Di cC) CD C) CD CD
I-C c<

c-iU)

H CD

U)

Di

Di C) C) Cl
CD

CD CD H- C) Di H- C) ClU)ctoC)ClC) Cl H C)O U)C)C). H cd COCldHCDH] Di C)CD CO0DiN)H ClCD HCl C3 H-Cl Ci cc HC) Cl CDCj Cl C) HU) CD 0 H] Ci 0 C) CI 0) C) U)U)H CCDC)C) -Q 0 H CDClClDiC) DJU)CD H d<H-CDb CD I- QN)ctM CD C) rt0 H-0C)OOClLPH-C H-C)-.J .cQUi C) OCCHCDC) hC)C) ClCD C) HCl0) rtH----CDU)0 CDCl----

C) CC H-

Cl H-

H0

0 Cl Di
H 0

0
.

1
U)

U)

CD
Di

<

C)

Cl CD
HC-i]

Di
H-

H-

ID

H]

Cl CD HU)
H t

C) U)DU)U)H-Hrt3Cl. U) d HH-C)CD F-OCHC)ClciHp, 00 (-)C) HCDk< 0 C)U) CD iCD 0C)H-ClDiCl

C d
U)

U]
0)

0 Cl C) CD

Cl
H
,,

C) Di CC
CI-

CD
bj

0 0 C)
H
Q)

CD
-lH-

I Di Ii
Di N
-,

H]

C) CD

IC
C)

Cl CD C) c< Di CD
H

CD HH-

0 C) i
U)

Di CD C) HCD H

CC

U) Cl

H IIH0 C)
H H

U)

U)

CC C)

IC) C)
0)

H0
C)

hrj

CD
H Cl

cc C) Di
H

U)
,

Cl o

CD
U)

w
C
H
-

Cl CD C) H H CD

bj
H U)

Cl)

CD CC
u,
H

CC H0 C)
Di C)

HCl
CD

CD
ox CD

H H

CD

I
Cl
ct

0 Cl 1H

CD Cl CD
I-C

CD
-j

H --CDHDicCClCiH CDU). C)C)C) C) DJDip.C) rtU)0Cl h DiC)<- H DJH-H t Di DJCDC)C) C)C) cC) 0 FCc) DiH-cH H-cC) H Cx) C) < CD Cx) C/) Di II I-C---CD H-CD C)CDH-cQ C), CDC)Dic-trtC)C) -dDi U)ClC)CDC)cPC)Z CDHC)C-rCH-CDCl< H F-iC)- H CDDi Di H ClDic< Cl HHCD ctCDC) H U) C) 0)Cl

C) 0 C) C) Di C)

C) C) HDi CC
H0 C)

Cl
CIt

C)
LO

CC 0
< C

0 H HC)
H

Q
CD Di H C) CD C) CD
U)

U) Cl

I lCD I I I ILi IC) IC lU) k IC,) ICC lCD I

Ci CD

-1
-

Ui cC)

c-I-

CD
Di
ct

Di
LQ

CD Cii
hj

C)
ct c-I-

HC) C) Di Di
h

I H C) 0 C) Di
Ft

C-)

Di Ii ,j
%.

Ft HFt
1

C) Hi
C) C)
Cl) &

0 C) Cl 0

C,) cTJ CD C) H-

0 C)

10 IH IHIC) C) 0 Ft CD H CD I C) HH C) C)

IH
CD C) C) C)
Di
j-

lo IH IDJ

CD Di
(I)
Cl)

Di Ft CD
ii CD

H HC)

0 ii HI
H-

0 H Di C) Cl

CD <

Hci

Di H Ft HC)

-, CD
it
rt
Cl)

0
H0 Hi Hc-t

IC) o
Ic-fCD H Di
N

CI) C,) CD () C)

C)

Di H

CD Hi Hp Di 0 H
Cl
co

it

r
C) -, Hi Hi CD H

IC)

lo
-, -,
Di H

Di C) C) 0

C)

Hi H Di CD CD

H-

CD Hi

c<
H

Di
CD Hi
3 Hi

HH HC) CD H -,
ui

Di H

C) C)

C) 0 C)
Ft Hit

Ft

C) C) Ft
C) Hi (31

Ft C) CD

ct 0

Di C) <

H Di

o
H C)
Ui Cl Di Di Ft CD Cl
Cii Hi H
i-j

Di C) C) CD (
1 C-

c5 Ft

00 HHi

C) C) Cl
CD
it

-<

CI

C)
I- Ft C) Di HDi
Ft

c-i-

H H-

H H CD C)
CD

HC) C) CD

H0 C) CD H

< (n
-

HFt H-

Ft
CD CD
LQ

C) CD

ci .
CD H

Ft C) CD 0
CD CD H CD
<

Di C) Cl Di H C) CD

Ft

cj

rj
CD
co C)

Di H

Lii

o
Hi HFt H CD Ft

CD hC) HH H-

Ft H-

Ft CD

U)

CD

Cl
Di Ft

c
C) C

Ft
Di

Ui
CD Ft

Di C) Ct

Cl
cci

Hi

H CD

o
H
c-i-

H Cl C)
u

HC) C)

Ct

H0 C) Di Hi

Ft C) Di Ft

Di Cl
HC)

Di cC) CD C) C)
H
-

3
H Di Ft

CD

HH Di C) H< (I)

HDi C)

Di C)

Cl Di Ft Di
H H < HFt C) CD HH

CD

H CD Cl

HFt Ft

FC)

U) O i)

Ct

Ft C) Di Ft HFt

Di C) CD 0

0 H

cn

o
CD Di H

HFt H

C) Di Ft HCD
C) Di

Ft C)
Ft CD H C) Di H Di <

T1 = CD C).

<

C) Di Ft Cl CD Ft CD
C C) Di

Di Ft CD

H HCD
Hi

(3) (3) 0 H Ft 0

CD

C C)

H CD Di
cci

C)

Ft

(ii

H-

Ft Di Ft HDi
Cl) C)

Q C) Di H < CD
H-

CI)

HC)

CD

CD C) C) 0
HFt

Di

CD

Cl

Di

()

C)
Ft CD Cl

C)

Hcci

Di

HC)

CI) Ft CD
H
-

CD

<I

CD
Il-H Cl

Di Ft CD

C) CD H C) CD Cl

H CD C) CD H-

<I Cl
Cl)

Ft
i C)

Ft

DiHHDi Ft C) CD Di Cl) C CD Ft H CD Cl HHC 0 HFt Ft CD H Di Hi CD CD H0 cC) Ft HW CI CD Ft 0 H CD H Dl C) H C) HC) CL). CD hC) Ft iJ CD < H 0 CD CD C) Ft H C Ft 0 Dl HFt Hi H H CD 0 CD
N)

Ft

Ft
-

H Ft HCD
Cl)

I rj

CD

CD

Hi 0 H

Ft 0 Di Cl 0 C) Ft Ft HH Ft C) Ft Ft Ft C) Cl Di HjC)CDDiC) C HHHFt W H o C) C) HHi HFt HFt H0 0 Di Di Cl) Ft H CD Di H HHi Di X CD Di Ft Ft H o HCD H CD H 0 Di C) C) CD Di Ft CD HCD Ft HFt Di Ft CD C) H 0 H C) Di Dl 0 H HDi H Cl) H H Ft Cl C CD HHCl C) C) Ft H0 Di Di Cl C CD HCD 0 C) 0 H H, C) Ft C) < Cl Cl

_ _

C-)
H HH-

H 0 CD W CD
U)
H

Ft W 0
H-

0 CD
U) Ft
U) HU) H U)
-

CD H Ft
CD Ft Ft CD H-

Ft 0 Ft 0 H 0 0 CD H CD Ft
t
-

Ft H CD 0 0 U)

Ft

W 0 CD Cl CD CD Ft Cl CD Ft CD Ft H CD CD CD H

0 0 CD CD CD 0 Ft 0 CD H CD H

CD

o
CD Di

CD

Cl
CD
HHHH

H CD H0 CD CD J 0 CD U)
H

H CD Cl

o
CD HCl

CD Cl H-

H 0 CD

Ft CD 0 ct 0 H U)

0) C) C

H 0 Ft

CD H
HDi
LQ

I CD
CD Di
H

Cl HFt Di H0 CD Cl HCD

HFt < HCD 0 U) Ft 0 Cl

HFt H0 CD

o z
Di Ft
H CD
H

H Di H0 CD

CD Ft
CD

Di CD Cl 0
H 0 HCD
CD

CD
U)

0
U) Ft
H H

o
I
Ft H H CD CD 0 CD
H

H CD HCD Cl
CD Di
)

Ft CD
Di CD CD 0 CD CD CD Cl Ft

Cl CD Ft Di H CD

0 H

CD CD CD Cl U) HCD Di H

0 Ft CD
Di
H-

HFt H0 CD CD H
CD

o
CD

CD Cl Ft < HCl 0 CD H HN CD Cl 0 0 H CD
U)

01

0 Ci H Ft

CD CD Z

0 CD

o
H-

CDI CD
HCD H-

CD H H CD H CD H 0
H-

0 Q Ci H Cl
CD CD CD HCD

H Di
F-

0
U)
Ft

Di Ft CD U)

Ft

Di CD Cl W 0

o
Ft
HFt CD Ft CD Ft CD U) H X Ft U) CD H0 0
U)

CD

Cl Di H
Di Ft Di CD

Cl CD H Di
Ft

3
CD CD CD Cl U) Ft 0 CD

Cl Ft
H-

CD CD 0 <
-

CD D Ci

CD 0 CD Ci
Ft U) CD Ft HFt

CD d

x
1
hO

Cl HCD CD Ft CD 0 CD HFt
H-

< U) H-

Cl CD Cl CD H Ft CD
LO

Di 0 CD CD < 0 0 CD
U) Fl

= Ft
0 Ft H CD CD Ft CD Di H CD Ft CD CD CD Di H HFt H Ft H CD 0 CD Ft CD U) HU)

H Ft

0 0 CD

Ft
CD 0
hi

CD
U)

II CD HCl CD HCD HCD Cl

lCD
j

0 H

CD Cl

hO H 0 H CD
HFt U) Ci 0 CD CD CD Ft H Ft Ft 0 Di H CD H < CD Cl CD Ft CD H

Cl HU) Ft Ft Ft Di W 0 hi CD CD 0 0 Ft

0 H CD CD H

= CD
C Ft CD CD Ft
LO

Cl)

CD
U)

0 CD CD H CD Ft

HCD 0 H Ci Cl HCD

r
o
Ft CD H CD H HCD
LQ

H Ft
U)

CD

HFt H0 Ft 0 H

hO H HCD
Ft Ft CD 0 Ft Di Ft
U)

hi CD Cl CD Ft 0
Fl
-

CD

CD CD Di
H Ft

CD CD 0 Ft CD 1 C l Ft CD HCD H
H-

HCD Ft 0 H

U) Ft Di Ft

c
<
CD
-

CD CD Ft

Ci H CD

CD

Di CD CD H < N CD U) Ft CD CD H CD 0 Ft HH CD Cl Di CD Cl

0
CD U)

H< CD

H CD Ft CD H CD CD 0 CD

Ft 0 HFt 0 HU)

0 0 CD 0 H

CD Ft H0 CD

0 H H0 HCD Ft CD X hO CD

Ft CD Ft 0 CD H Ft 0 Ft CD
LO

0 H HCi hO
U)

CD

Di H CD
Ft 0

HCD
0 Ft

CD

C)

Di CD HCD Ft CD H Ft CD CD 0
CD

Cl CD Cl
Cl 0 0 Ci 0 CD

Ft HCD CD Ft Di H 0 H Ft CD Cl

CD H CD

Ft CD

0 Fl HFt CD H HCD 0 Ft

CD
t CD

H CD Ft HI H < Ft CD CD H CD CD 0 CD

CD X hO H Di CD Di Ft H0 CD

cj

H CD Ft H 0 H CD

Fl CD U) 0 Ci H 0 CD CD Cl Cl HFt H0 CD CD
L<

CD CD CD

CD 0 CD Ci U) CD 0 H Cl CD H U)

0 0 CD U) Ft Cl CD H CD Ft CD U) CD CD Ft Ft CD CD
U)

<

Di

CD Ft CD CD Ft H CD CD Ft CD Cl 0 0 Ci H Ft CD Ft H CD D <
-

O Ft 0
C.)

CD

CD

H Di Ft H0 CD CD H

HFt CD

Ft CD CD

U) [J Cx hi

I-I

1(J)

hi

fl
HCD
hi

hi
0
LQ

C-) C))

CC

Ii 10 CD Ft
H F

CD hi

Ft 0. CD CD Cl CD

IC)) lCD CD

ICx
0
Cx

Ft 0. CD hi Di

0
CD
3 hi
.

CD C) 0 hi Cl
hi

HH-

CD Di H hi C) 0. Di Ft
Cx C1 C H-

0. CD H hi H C) H Ft Di Ft CD >< hC) H Di H 0 0. H0 0. Ft
CD hi C) CD H Ft H
Cx Cx HH 0

CD C) 0 hi Cl
0 Ft 0. Di

CD hi hi H HCD Cl hi CD .0 C) Hhi CD Cl 3 Ft CD hi hi hi CD
CD hi hi CD H CD

C) 0 0 Ft Di H0 0 C) Hp. CD H HC) CD H C) Cl CD CD Cl
Ft Di Ft CD

I-I Ft 0 CD
Cx

0 H H HC) HDi H hi CD hi Ft H0 Ft 0 CD Cl
H

C)

Di Cl) Di
HC/) H-

Cl)

F--I

HFt

CD Ft

Ft 0.
hi hi CD

w
C)
HH

Cl

C) (ii

CD Di
F-i

Di

<

Cl)

IN
C)) CD CD
Cl)

Ft CD CD
Cx

Cl) Q hi CD hi
CD 0 CD
i-i-

Ft 0. Di Ft

CD Di H
x<
H

hi HCD C) Cl

hi CD
Cx
-. -,

Cx

CD C
-j

I L
HH CD Cl

c
< H 0
.

Ft CD Cl
C H

Di
Cx
I ci

HCD Cx HCl)

0 H 0 H 0 C) M

0 C) C) CD hi C) HC) Ft 0. Hoi

Di Cl CD
j

0 C) HHFt
Cx
Cx

C) Ft
Ft 0 Ft

0. CD Ft 0. CD
hi I
cii i

hi 0 Cl) HC) 0 C) H Cl C) 0 C) hi Ft C 0 Ft HC) CD

C) 0 Ft H0 CD

Cl Hhi CD C) Ft

Ft
Di C) Cl

Cx

Ft 0. CD H

CD C)
C) hi CD
Cx Cx

0 C) C C) 0. CD hi
Di C) Di H hi CD

Ft 0

Ft 0. CD

0 H CD Di F-I

0. CD
o

o
C) CD
Di Ft
Co H H

hi Di Ft H-

H0 C) H Ft 0. CD
Ft fi Hi-i
H C

o
HFt CD Cl

Cl

Ft H Di C) Cl HCl)

CD

0 C)
-

CD hi 0
H,
C

C) Di CD Di Ft H Ft CD Cl) <
Cx
CC H C

Ft Di Hi H

Di P CD C) C)

Cl CD C) C/) Ft
Dl

1<

iP CD C) CD l Di H H < CD 0 hi
-

C) 0

-_-

hi HFt Ft CD

Di Ft Cl) hi

H-

Cl CD C) Cl C)
Cx
-,

Cl 0 C) 0 C)
H-

Ft HH C) H0 0 HCDQC)
<

CD >
* CX)

hi CD C) 0 hi Cl

w
CD 0 Ft
Ft 0. CD C/) CD CD HFt
Cx
Li-

CD 0 C) CD
hi

Di
H F-I

H C) Ft Cl)
H CD

Di Cl CD Di C) Cl

o
CD Ft
Cx

C:)

CD CD Cl CD Di
CD Ft 0. CD

C) HCl)

Cl p. Ft CD H
Ft 0. CD
Cx

C) C) CD Cl
Cl)

Di p CD C) C) hi

HDi
LC)

Ft 0. CD

CD

Di Cl

CD CD H CD 0. CD C) H C) CD H0 C)
Cx

p
Cx Cx CD
Cl)

o
lCD
0 CD
C))

Ft 0. Di Ft
H
H

0 H HC) hi
-

Ft 0
-

x
0. CD hi Ft 0. CD Di Cl

HC) H
H

Ft 0. CD
HC) HLC)

Ft 0. Di Ft

Di

hi CD H CD hi 0
C)

<

Ft 0. CD

M H Di Di p. Di Di Ft
HCx Cx

Cl)

I
Ft CD C)
Cx

CC) CD Cx)

CD CD Di Ft 0. CD

Cl CD Ft Di Ft 0. Di C)

Di C) Ft

hj

0 C) Cl H
H< CD

I
<

HCx

HFt
CD

Ft H0 C)

H HC)

Ft H Di Ft H

(,j

H HC) HCx

HFt Ft 0. Di C)
H

Cl CD C)
Cx Cx
l.0

HC) H HC) CD

Cl

C) H CD Ft Ft Di Ft C) Ft CD C)
Cl)

HCx

Cx

hi

CD H
CD
hi
LQ

Cx

cii 01 -o

H0 C) hi Dl

HFt Ft CD Cl hi H 0 0. hi 0 C) Ft 0 0. CD hi

Di H CD Ft hi CD Ft H<

Di C) H 0 hi
H

CD

1 H H-I x.0 Di CD Ft II HI]) 0 Di C)

CD
hi

Ft hi Di Ft H-

01

CD C) 0 H p. Di 0 hi
C) 0 Ft

Iz
C) 0 Ft Di C)

CD

<1

C) H CD Ft 0 CD C) Ui Cl
Cx

0 C) H

CD C) C)

Cx H-

tj CD HC) Q CD

Ft CD CD H

Cl

hi

Cx

Case 3:08-cv-00578-MA

Document 57

Filed 06/16/10

Page 33 of 34

Page ID#: 775

In the instant case, the BOP has a basis for requiring unusual or extraordinary circumstances and Regional Director approval for extended RRC placements which is both reasonable and discernable from the Memoranda. centralized control It is over rational to assume that without some the available RRC

extended placements,

resources could be quickly exhausted. *8_9. that

McDonald, 2010 WL 1526443 at

It is reasonable for the BOP to be concerned with ensuring inmates who have the greatest need for the specialized

services that RRCs provide have access to them. 601 F.3d at 943

See MoraMeraz,

(the Bureau is properly concerned with enrolling

inmates who genuinely qualify for the therapy and prisoners who do not qualify should not be permitted to take the place of another who is in greater need of this intensive treatment) requires Director unusual or extraordinary to ensure circumstances
.

That the BOP and Regional for

concurrence

centralized

coordination

extended RRC placements is neither arbitrary or capricious. In sum, I and conclude the that the P.S. 7310.04, are not the April or

Memorandum,

November

Memorandum

arbitrary

capricious under 706(2) (A)

//// //// //// //// ////

33
-

OPINION AND ORDER

Appendix 033

Case 3:08-cv-00578-MA

Document 57

Filed 06/16/10

Page 34 of 34

Page ID#: 776

////

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, of habeas corpus the inmate class (#56) who the second amended petition for writ

is GRANTED with respect to those members of have been or will be considered for

pre

release RRC placement in that the court declares that the October 2008 regulations, enjoined from 28 C.F.R. 570.2022 are invalid. inmates for pre-release RRC The BOP is placement

considering

pursuant to 28 C.F.R.

570.20-22 until such time as regulations

are promulgated in accordance with 5 U.S.C. respects, the second amended petition (#56)

553(b).

In all other

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 16 day of JUNE, 2010.

Malcolm F. Marsh_______ _/s/ Malcolm F. Marsh United States District Judge

34

OPINION AND ORDER

Appendix 034

Page 1 628 F.3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Sew. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211 (Cite as: 628 F.3d 1059) 197k842 k. Review de novo. Most Cited Cases The Court of Appeals reviews de novo a dis trict courts decision granting or denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 2241. 28 U.S.C.A. 2241. 121 Federal Courts 170B 776 170B Federal Courts 170B Viii Courts of Appeals I 7OBVIII(K) Scope, Standards, and Extent I7OBVIII(K)1 In General l70Bk776 k. Trial de novo. Most Cited Cases The Court of Appeals reviews questions of stat utory interpretation de novo. 796

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Tim Ray SACORA, PetitionerAppellant, Larry L. Beaman; Todd H. Sonobe, Petition ersIntervenors,
V.

Jeff E. THOMAS, Warden, Federal Prison Camp, Sheridan, Oregon, RespondentAppellee. No. 1035553. Argued and Submitted Oct. 4, 2010. Filed Dec. 6, 2010. Background: Federal prison inmates brought 2241 habeas corpus class action petition, challen ging the policies by which Bureau of Prisons (BOP) placed inmates in community correctional facilities, also known as residential re-entry centers (RRCs). The United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Malcolm F. Marsh, J., 2009 WL 4639635. granted petition in part and denied in part, and in mates appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Tashirna, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) policies reasonably implemented the Second Chance Act (SCA); (2) policies were not arbitrary and capricious; and (3) policies were not substantive rules subject to Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs) noticeand-comment requirements. Affirmed. West Headnotes 111 Habeas Corpus 197 842 197 Habeas Corpus 197111 Jurisdiction, Proceedings, and Relief 197111(D) Review l97111(D)2 Scope and Standards of Re view

13l Administrative Law and Procedure ISA

1 5A Administrative Law and Procedure I5AV Judicial Review of Administrative De cisions 1 5AV(E) Particular Questions, Review of i5Ak796 k. Law questions in general. Iviost Cited Cases Whether an agency pronouncement is interpret ive or substantive is a legal question that the Court of Appeals reviews de novo.

141 Prisons 310 Z248

310 Prisons 3 I Oil Prisoners and Inmates 31011(F) Duration of Confinement 31 0k248 k. Conditional release; com munity placement. Most Cited Cases Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy for pre-release placement of inmates in residential re-entry centers (RRCs) reasonably implemented the Second Chance Act (SCA), which required RRC placement to be of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the com munity, but that RRC placement was not to exceed

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

5/13/2011 Appendix 035

Page 1 of 12

Page 2 628 F.3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211 (Cite as: 628 F.3d 1059) 12 months; BOP policy, that six months in RRC was sufficient duration in most cases, but that each inmate was eligible for I 2month placement and was to be individually considered for RRC placement, was facially consistent with SCA, moreover, RRC placement decision required BOP to consider resources of RRC facilities, so it was reasonable for BOP to conserve RRC resources by applying an extra check on longest RRC place ments, and policy also required earlier pre-release placement review in order to afford each inmate the opportunity to be placed in RRC for the full 12 months. 18 U.S.C.A. 3621(b), 3624(c)(l), (c)(6)(C). ent in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronounce ments, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control, including the logic and expertness of the decision, the care used in reaching the decision, as well as the formality of the process used. [7] Prisons 310 327 310 Prisons 31011 Prisoners and Inmates 31011(H) Proceedings 3 10k326 Rulemaking and Rulemaking Proceedings 310k327 k. In general. Most Cited Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policies for place ment of inmates in residential re-entry centers (RRCs) were not arbitrary and capricious, despite contention that BOP did not provide empirical sup port or sufficiently articulate rationale for require ment that unusual circumstances were needed to justify RRC placement longer than six months; al though RRC placements of up to 12 months were authorized by statute, BOPs ten-year experience with placing inmates in RRCs, albeit for periods of six months or less, provided reasonable basis for understanding how placements of varying lengths would affect most inmates. 18 U.S.C.A. 3621(b) 3624(c)(l), (c)(6)(C); 28 U.S.C.A. 2241. [81 Administrative Law and Procedure iSA 749

[51 Prisons 310 329

310 Prisons 3 lOll Prisoners and Inmates 31011(H) Proceedings 31 0k326 Rulemaking and Rulemaking Proceedings 310k329 k. Judicial review. Most Cited Cases Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policies for place ment of inmates in residential re-entry centers (RRCs) were not entitled to Chevron deference in inmates 2241 habeas action which alleged that policies violated governing statutes, where policies did not purport to carry the force of law and were not adopted after notice and comment. 18 U.S.C.A. 3621(b), 3624(c)(1), (c)(6)(C); 28 U.SC.A. 2241. [61 Statutes 361 219(1) 361 Statutes 361 VI Construction and Operation 361 V 1(A) General Rules of Construction 361 k2 13 Extrinsic Aids to Construction 361k219 Executive Construction 361k219(1) k. In general. Most Cited Cases The weight accorded by reviewing court to an agency decision which is not entitled to Chevron deference will depend upon the thoroughness evid

1 5A Administrative Law and Procedure 1 5AV Judicial Review of Administrative De cisions I5AV(.D) Scope of Review in General l5Ak749 k. Presumptions. Most Cited Cases Administrative Law and Procedure iSA 763 1 5A Administrative Law and Procedure I 5AV Judicial Review of Administrative De

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

5/13/2011 Appendix 036

Page2ofl2

Page 3 628 F.3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211 (Cite as: 628 F.3d 1059) cisions 1 5AV(D) Scope of Review in General 1 5Ak763 k. Arbitrary, unreasonable or ca pricious action; illegality. Most Cited Cases Under the arbitrary and capricious standard, ju dicial review of agency action is highly deferential, presuming the agency action to be valid and affirm ing the agency action if a reasonable basis exists for its decision. 5 U.S.C.A. 706(2)(A). 394 provided guidance to BOP staff in exercising their discretionary power to determine whether each in mate was eligible for RRC placement of up to 12 months as authorized by SCA. 5 U.S.C.A. 553; 18 U.S.C.A. 3621(b), 3624(c)(l), (c)(6)(C); 28 U.S.C.A. 2241. West Codenotes Prior Version Recognized as Invalid28 C.F.R. 520.20, 520.21. *1061 Stephen R. Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender, Portland, OR, for the petitioner-appellant and petitioner-intervenors. Kelly A. Zusman, Appellate Chief, Office of the United States Attorney, Portland, OR, for the re spondent-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding. DC No. 3:08cv0578 MA. Before: A. WALLACE TASIIIMA, RICI-IARD A. PAEZ, and RICHARD R. CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. OPINION TASHIMA, Circuit Judge: Tim Ray Sacora, Larry L. Beaman, and Todd Sonobe (collectively Petitioners) brought this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 challenging the policies by which the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) places inmates in community cor rectional facilities, also known as residential re entry centers (RRCs). Petitioners contend that the substance of the BOPs policies violates the statutory provisions that the policies purport to im plement, 18 U.S.C. 3621(b) and 3624(c), and that the procedure by which the policies were adop ted violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). FNI. These facilities are referred to in the governing statute as community correc tions centers. See 18 U.S.C. 3624(c).

191 Administrative Law and Procedure 15A

ISA Administrative Law and Procedure I 5A1V Powers and Proceedings of Administrat ive Agencies, Officers and Agents 1 5AIV(C) Rules and Regulations I 5Ak392 Proceedings for Adoption l5Ak394 k. Notice and comment, ne cessity. Most Cited Cases Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal administrative agency is required to follow prescribed notice-and-comment proced ures before promulgating substantive rules. 5 U.S.C.A. 553. 1101 Prisons 310 327 310 Prisons 3 1011 Prisoners and Inmates 3101 [(H) Proceedings 31 0k326 Rulemaking and Rulemaking Proceedings 310k327 k. In general. Most Cited Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policies for place ment of inmates in residential re-entry centers (RRCs) were not substantive rules subject to Ad ministrative Procedure Acts (APAs) noticeand-comment requirements; policies provided that, in the normal case, six months RRC placement was sufficient to achieve reintegration objectives of Second Chance Act (SCA), but policies also al lowed BOP staff to determine what constituted un usual or extraordinary circumstances for which six months was insufficient, and policies thus merely

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

5/13/2011 Appendix 037

Page 3 of 12

Page 4 628 F.3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211 (Cite as: 628 F.3d 1059) We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 2253(a). We conclude that the BOPs policies violate neither the statutory provisions that they im plement nor the APA. We therefore affirm the judg ment of the district court. I. BACKGROUND (B) recommending a type of penal or A. Statutory and Regulatory Background Two statutory provisions govern the BOPs au thority to place inmates in its *1062 custody in RRCs: 18 U.S.C. 3621(b) and 3624(c). Section 3621 governs the authority of the BOP to designate a prisoners placement in general while he or she is in the BOPs custody. In the context of RRCs, this section governs the BOPs authority in cases where a prisoner who has more than a year left to serve of his or her prison sentence requests a transfer to 2 The policies and procedures by such a facilityJN which the BOP classifies and designates inmates is set forth in its Program Statement 5100.08, Inmate Security Designation and Custody Class/ication (2006) (Program Statement 5100.08), available at http:!/ www. bop. gov/ policy! progstat! 5100_ 008. pdf. FN2. That governing statute provides: The Bureau of Prisons shall designate the place of the prisoners imprisonment. The Bureau may designate any available penal or correctional facility that meets minimum standards of health and habit ability established by the Bureau that the Bureau determines to be appropriate and suitable, considering.
...

(4) any statement by the court that im

posed the sentence

(A) concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was de termined to be warranted; 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. The Bureau may at any time, having regard for the same matters, direct the transfer of a prisoner from one penal or correctional facility to another.... 18 U.S.C.

3621(b).

Congress also charged the BOP with preparing prisoners for reentry to the community during the final months of their terms of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. 3624(c). Pursuant to this section, prisoners may be placed in a RRC or in home confinement. The BOPs policies on the use of RRCs are set forth in the agencys Program Statement 7310.04, Com munity Corrections Center (CCC) Utilization and Transfer Procedure (1998) (Program Statement 7310.04), available at http:!! www. hop. gov! policy! progstat! 7310 004. pdf. Prior to enactment of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (SCA), Pub.L. No. 110l99, 122 Stat. 657 (2008) (codified at42 U.S.C. 17501 17555 ), 3 624(c) provided that the BOP

(1) the resources of the facility contem plated; (2) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (3) the history and characteristics of the prisoner;

shall, to the extent practicable, assure that a pris oner 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 reason able opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the prisoners re-entry into the community. 18 U.S.C.A.

3624(c) (West 2008). The sub

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Ong. US Gov. Works.

5/13/2011 Appendix 038

Page 4 of 12

628 F.3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211
(Cite as: 628 F.3d 1059) section also provided that this authority extended to placing a prisoner in home confinement. Ic! Section 3624(c) was amended on April 9, 2008, by the SCA to provide that the BOP section.

Page 5

(4) No limitations. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit or restrict the authority of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons under section 3621 (5) Reporting. Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (and every year thereafter), the Director of the Bur eau of Prisons shall transmit to the Com mittee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report de scribing the Bureaus utilization of com munity corrections facilities. Each report under this paragraph shall set forth the number and percentage of Federal pris oners placed in community corrections facilities during the preceding year, the average length of such placements, trends in such utilization, the reasons some prisoners are not placed in com munity corrections facilities, and any other information that may be useful to the committees in determining if the Bureau is utilizing community correc tions facilities in an effective manner.

shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that a pris

oner serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of that term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will af ford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to ad just to and prepare for the reentry of that prisoner into the community. Such conditions may include a community correctional facility. Accordingly, after enactment of the SCA, 3624 governs the designation of prisoners to RRCs for the final months of their sentences. FN3 FN3. As amended, the statute in its entirety now provides: (c) Prerelease custody. (1) In general. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall, to the extent practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of that term (not to exceed 12 months), under condi tions that will afford that prisoner a reas onable opportunity to adjust to and pre pare for the reentry of that prisoner into the community. Such conditions may in clude a community correctional facility. (2) Home confinement authority. The authority under this subsection may be used to place a prisoner in home con finement for the shorter of 10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prison er or 6 months. (3) Assistance. The United States Pro bation System shall, to the extent prac ticable, offer assistance to a prisoner during prerelease custody under this sub-

(6) Issuance of regulations. The Dir

ector of the Bureau of Prisons shall issue regulations pursuant to this subsection not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the Second Chance Act of 2007, which shall ensure that place ment in a community correctional facil ity by the Bureau of Prisons is (A) conducted in a manner consistent with section 362 1(b) of this title; (B) determined on an individual basis; and

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

5/13/2011
Appendix 039

Page 5 of 12

Page 6

628 F.3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Sew. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211 (Cite as: 628 F.3d 1059) (C) of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reinteg ration into the community. 18 U.S.C. thority. The April 14 Memorandum details the relevant statutory changes made by the SCA, explains how BOP staff should make placement decisions in light of the statutory changes, and provides a redline of 18 U.S.C. 3621 and 3624(c) demonstrating those changes. The memorandum advises that [w]ith minor adjustments[,] staff should make inmates pre-release RRC placement decisions on an indi vidual basis using current bureau policy, Program Statement No. 7310.04 The memorandum goes on to note that because the SCA has increased the maximum allowable pre-release community correc tions placement period to 12 months, BOP staff must review inmates for pre-release community corrections placements earlier than before, 1719 months prior to their projected release dates. Fur ther, it reminds staff that inmates must be individu ally considered for pre-release placements in com munity corrections facilities and that this individual consideration must be based on the criteria set forth in 3621(b). Quoting 3624(c)(6)(C), the April 14 Memorandum also notes that the SCA requires staff to ensure that pre-release placements in community corrections facilities are of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful rein tegration to the community, emphasizing that [t]his means Bureau staff must approach every in dividual inmates assessment with the understand ing that he/she is now eligible for a maximum of 12 months pre-release RRC placement. Accordingly, the memo cautions that provisions in Program Statement 7310.04 reflecting any other possible maximum timeframe must be ignored. However, the April 14 Memorandum also notes that
...

3624(c).

*1063 On April 14, 2008, five days after the SCA went into effect, BOP officials issued a memorandum (the April 14 Memorandum) ex plaining the changes to the law and setting forth guidance to BOP staff about how to administer the new law. On October 21, 2008, well past the 90 day deadline provided for in the SCA, the BOP issued the regulations required by the statute. See PreRelease Community Confinement, 73 Fed.Reg. 6244001 (Oct. 21, 2008) (codified at 28 C.F.R. 570.20 .22). Noting that the statutory deadline of July 8, 2008, had passed, the BOP determined that [a]dopting these rules through the normal noticeand-comment procedures would not be consistent with the short statutory time-frame provided for im plementing these regulatory changes and that [r]equiring formal notice-and-comment procedures would be contrary to the public interest in this case. Id. at 62442. Accordingly, the BOP issued the regulations as an interim final rule, and chose to forgo the requirement under 5 U.S.C. 552(d) which provides for regulations to go into effect 30 days after the date of publication. Id. Substant ively, the regulations: (1) define the terms community confinement and home detention; (2) provide that inmates may be designated to com munity confinement as a condition of pre-release custody for a period not to exceed 12 months and to home detention for a period not to exceed the short er of ten percent of the inmates term of imprison ment or six months; FN4 and (3) provide that in mates will be considered for community confine ment in a manner consistent with 362 1(b) on an individual basis,*1064 with placements of suffi cient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.

FN4. The regulations also provide that these periods of time can be exceeded where permitted by separate statutory au

[w]hile the Act makes inmates eligible for a max imum of 12 months pre-release RRC placements, Bureau experience reflects inmates pre-release RRC needs can usually be accommodated by a placement of six months or less. Should staff de termine an inmates pre-release RRC placement may require greater than six months, the Warden must obtain the Regional Directors written con-

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

5/13/2011

Page6ofl2 Appendix 040

Page 7 628 F.3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Sew. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211 (Cite as: 628 F.3d 1059) currence before submitting the placement to the Community Corrections Manager. On November 14, 2008, BOP officials issued another memorandum (the November 14 Memor andum) which provides guidance to BOP staff when considering inmate requests for transfers to RRCs before the final 12 months of the inmates sentence. It notes that [i]nmates are legally eli gible to be placed in an RRC at any time during their prison sentence[s], and that [s]taff cannot, therefore, automatically deny an inmates request for transfer to a RRC. Instead, inmate requests for RRC placement must receive individualized consideration. The memorandum further notes that [t]elling an inmate that he/she is ineligible for RRC placement is the same as automatically deny ing the inmate from even being considered for such placement, and is not in accord with Bureau policy. However, as in the April 14 Memorandum, the November 14 Memorandum advises BOP staff that a RRC placement beyond six months should only occur when there are unusual or extraordinary circumstances justifying such placement, and the Regional Director concurs. B. Factual and Procedural Background Petitioner Sacora, a prisoner at the Federal Cor rectional Institution at Sheridan, Oregon (FCI Sheridan), filed, pro se, a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the policies by which the BOP made its determinations regarding community confinement. After counsel was appointed, Sacora moved for certification of a class of *1065 [a]ll federal prisoners serving sentences in the District of Oregon who have been or will be considered for community corrections placement under 18 U.S.C. 362 1(b) and 3624(c). The district court found that Sacora met the re quirements for class certification with respect to his claims under 3624(c) and the April 14 Memor andum. It also found, however, that Sacora had not alleged any injury from application of the Novem ber 14 Memorandum or the BOPs refusal to exer cise its discretion to place him in a RRC prior to the final 12 months of his sentence pursuant to 3621(b). Accordingly, the district court certified the class of prisoners injured by the application of 3624(c) and the April 14 Memorandum. The court also granted leave either to amend the petition to al lege injuries under 362 1(b) and the November 14 Memorandum, or to identify an additional class representative who could make such allegations. Subsequently, Petitioners Beaman and Sonobe, also prisoners at FCI Sheridan, sought leave to intervene and be named as class plaintiffs, alleging injuries pursuant to 3621(b) and the November 14 Memorandum. The district court granted the motion to intervene and certified the following class: All federal prisoners serving sentences in the Dis trict of Oregon who have been denied or will be denied community corrections placement in ex cess of six months under 18 U.S.C. 3624(c) and 18 U.S.C. 3621(b), pursuant to [the April 14 Memorandum, the November 14 Memorandum,] Program Statement 7310.04, Program Statement 5100.08[ FN5] and 28 C,F,R. 570.20 et seq. FN5. In its opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the petition for habeas corpus, the district court noted that Petitioners made no specific argument con cerning Program Statement 5100.08. Ac cordingly, the district court considered the point abandoned. Petitioners have not chal lenged this determination on appeal. After Petitioners filed a second amended peti tion setting forth all claims of Sacora and the inter vening Petitioners, the district court granted the pe tition with respect to the BOPs formal regulations, 28 C.F.R. 570.20 .22, finding that the BOPs failure to use notice-and-comment provisions in promulgating those regulations violated the APA, and enjoined the BOP from considering inmates for placement in RRCs pursuant to those regulations. The district court denied the petition in all other re spects. Petitioners filed their notice of appeal the

same dayP 6

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

5/13/2011 Appendix 041

Page7ofl2

Page 8 628 F.3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211 (Cite as: 628 F.3d 1059) FN6. The BOP did not appeal the district courts invalidation of the SCA regulations, .22, for failure to 28 C.F.R. 570.20 comply with the notice-and-comment pro visions of the APA.

II. ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review [1][2][3] We review de novo a district courts decision granting or denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to [28 U.S.C.] 2241 IvloraJvferaz v. Thomas, 601 F.3d 933, 939 (9th Cir.2010) (alteration in the original) (internal quo tation marks omitted). We also review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. See, e.g., Roc/rig nez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir.2008). In addition, [w]hether an agency pronouncement is interpretive or substantive is a legal question that we review de novo. ?vloraMeraz, 601 F.3d at 939 (alteration in the original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
.

munity, 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(6)(C), the statute also provides that this period is not to exceed 12 months. 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(l) (emphasis added). In delegating the authority to the BOP to adopt reg ulations implementing the SCA, the space between sufficient duration and 12 months was ex pressly left to the BOP to fill. The BOPs policythat six months in a RRC constitutes a sufficient duration in most cases, but that each in mate is eligible for a 12month placement and must be considered for placement in a RRC on an mdividual basisis facially consistent with the statute.

FN7

FN7. The policy is also consistent with Congress purpose in enacting the SCA to assist offenders reentering the com munity from incarceration to establish a self-sustaining and law-abiding life by providing sufficient transitional services Jr as short of a period as practicable, not to exceed one year, unless a longer period is specifically determined to be necessary by a medical or other appro priate treatment professional[.] 42 U.S.C. ded).

B. The Challenged Policies Are Reasonable Con structions of 18 U.S.C. 362 1(b) and 3624(c) [4] In reviewing an agencys interpretation of a statute it administers, a court *1066 must always first determine whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter[.] Chevron USA. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def Council, Thc., 467 U.S. 837, 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). Petitioners contend that, under 3624(c), the SCA unambiguously forecloses the BOP from presuming that six months of RRC placement is sufficient in the typical case, because the statute anticipates that the starting point for community corrections placements be 12 months We disagree. Although Petitioners are correct that the statute mandates that the BOPs regulations ensure that placement in a community correctional facility is of sufficient duration to provide the greatest like lihood of successful reintegration into the corn...

17501(a)(5) (emphasis ad

[5] If the challenged policies had been adopted pursuant to the notice-and-comment process, this would be the end of the inquiry. See Lhiited States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 22627, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001) (holding that administrative implementation of a particular stat utory provision qualifies for Chevron deference when it appears that Congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law, and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority); (hevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. 2778 ([I]f the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agencys answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.).

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

5/13/2011 Appendix 042

Page 8 ofl2

Page 9 628 F.3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211

(Cite as: 628 F.3d 1059)

However, because Program Statement 7310.04 and the April 14 Memorandum do[ I not purport to carry the force of law and [were] not adopted after notice and comment, they are not entitled to the level of deference provided for in Chevron. Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir.2008). Despite not being entitled to Chevron deference, however, the challenged policies are still entitled to a measure of deference under Skid more v. Swift & (a., 323 U.S. 134, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 LEd. 124 (1944). Tahiada, 533 F.3d at 806; see also Rena v. Kora, 515 U.S. 50, 61, 115 S.Ct. 2021, 132 L.Ed.2d 46 (1995) (It is true that the Bureaus interpretation appears only in a Program Statemen[t]an internal agency guideline [b]ut BOPs internal agency guideline is still entitled to some deference. (first alteration in the origin- al)).
...

sessment with the understanding that he/she is now eligible for a maximum of 12 months pre-release RRC placement and clearly states that [p]rovisions in [Program Statement] 7310.04 that reflect any other possible maximum timeframe must be ignored. The April 14 Memorandum does note that Bureau experience reflects inmates pre-release RRC needs can usually be accommodated by a placement of six months or less. The BOP, however, is entitled to use its experience in inter preting and administering a statute, as Mead recog nizes. See Mead 533 U.S. at 228, 121 S.Ct. 2164 (noting that the fair measure of deference to an agency administering its own statute has been un derstood to vary with circumstances, and courts have looked to the [agencys] relative expert ness in determining whether to grant that defer ence). Further, the SCA expressly provides that [n]othing in [ 3624(c) ] shall be construed to lim it or restrict the authority of the Director of the Bur eau of Prisons under section 3621. 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(4). Thus, the ultimate point of reference for RRC placement decisions under 3 624(c) is the set of factors set forth in 3621(b), including the re sources of the facility contemplated, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the history and characteristics of the prisoner. See 18 U.S.C. 3621(b). Given the statutory mandate that the BOP consider the resources of the facility to which it is considering designating a given prisoner when making placement decisions, it is not unreasonable for the agency to conserve the resources of RRCs by applying an extra check on the longest place ments in RRCs. In addition, the BOPs decision to require unusual circumstances demonstrating a need for longer placements is persuasive given Congress expressed purpose in enacting the SCA to assist offenders reentering the community from incarceration by providing sufficient transitional services for as short of a period as practicable. 42 U.S.C. 17501(a)(5).
... ...

...

FN8. We address the question of whether these pronouncements should have been promulgated through notice-and-comment procedures below. See infra, Part II.C.2. *1067 [6] Under Skichnore, [t]he weight [accorded to an administrative] judgment will de pend upon the thoroughness evident in its consider ation, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control. Mend, 533 U.S. at 228, 121 S.Ct. 2164 (second alteration in the original) (quoting Skithnore, 323 U.S. at 140, 65 S.Ct. 161). Mead adds as other relevant factors the logic[ and expertness of an agency decision, the care used in reaching the decision, as well as the formality of the process used. Wilderness Socv v. US. Fish & WildliJi Serv., 353 F.3d 1051, 1068 (9th Cir.2003) (en bane) (alteration in the original) (quoting Mead 533 U.S. at 228, 235, 121 S.Ct. 2164), amended in part by, 360 F.3d 1374 (9th Cir.2004).

...

Analyzed in light of Skidinore, the BOPs policies are reasonable and sufficiently persuasive. The April 14 Memorandum provides that BOP staff must approach every individual inmates as-

As for the regulations consistency with earlier

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

5/13/2011
Appendix 043

Page9ofl2

Page 10 628 F.3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211 (Cite as: 628 F.3d 1059) pronouncements, ironically, it is Petitioners who ar gue that the challenged policies are too consistent with earlier pronouncements, by arguing that the BOP merely continued its previous rule without making changes Petitioners contend the SCA re quires. The BOP did make changes to the rule, however, to accommodate the new statutory time frame: after the April 14 Memorandum each in mates pre-release placement review was to take place somewhere between 17 and 19 months before the inmates release, instead of the 11 to 13 months provided for in Program Statement 7310.04. See Program Statement 7310.04, at 7. This change af fords each inmate the opportunity to be *1068 placed in a RRC for the full 12 months the statute authorizes, should the circumstances justify it. Sim ilarly, the April 14 Memorandum specifies that BOP staff must ignore provisions in the Program Statement reflecting any possible maximum time frame for RRC placement other than 12 months. For substantially the same reasons, the similar policy set forth in the November 14 Memorandum is consistent with 3621(b) and sufficient under Skidmore. Petitioners argue, however, that the policy as set forth in the November 14 Memor andum is contrary to our decision in Rodriguez v. Smith, 541 F.3d 1180 (9ih Cir.2008). We disagree. In Rodriguez, we held that the prior version of the regulations codified at 28 C.F.R. 520.20 and 520.21 was invalid, because it categorically ex clude[d] inmates from RRC eligibility without con sidering the mandatory factors articulated in 3621(b). 541 F.3d at 1187. No such problem exists here. Although the November 14 Memorandum does set forth a presumption that RRC placements of longer than six months should occur only when there are unusual or extraordinary circumstances justifying such placement[ ] and the Regional Dir ector concurs, the Memorandum also admonishes BOP staff that they cannot automatically deny an inmates request for transfer to a RRC because [i]nmates are legally eligible to be placed in an RRC at any time during their prison sentence[s].
...

The memorandum also reminds the BOP staff that they must individually consider the request, just as they would any other request for lower security transfer. Further, the memorandum reminds the staff that when they review an inmates transfer re quest, they should review the five factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 362 1(b) that, we noted in Rodriguez, are mandatory. Rothigoez, 541 F.3d at li87. Ac cordingly, we conclude that the BOPs policy as set forth in the November 14 Memorandum does not violate the SCA. C. The Challenged Policies Were Not Promul gated in Violation of the APA 1. The BOPs Determinations Were Not Arbit rary or Capricious in Violation of 5 U.S.C. 706 [7] Petitioners also challenge the BOPs policies under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 706, arguing that the policies were promulgated without empiric al support and without a sufficiently articulated ra tionale. Under 706, the APA requires courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency action, find ings, and conclusions found to be[ ] arbitrary, capri cious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A). [8] Under the arbitrary and capricious stand ard, our review is highly deferential, presuming the agency action to be valid and affirming the agency action if a reasonable basis exists for its de cision. Crickon Thomas, 579 F.3d 978, 982 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
...

A reasonable basis exists where the agency con sidered the relevant factors and articulated a ra tional connection between the facts found and the choices made. Although we may uphold a de cision of less than ideal clarity if the agencys path may reasonably be discerned, we may not infer an agencys reasoning from mere silence. Arrington v Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir.2008) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the BOP relied on Bureau experi

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

5/13/2011 Appendix 044

Page 10 of 12

Page 11 628 F.3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211
(Cite as: 628 F.3d 1059)

ence to explain its choice to require unusual cir cumstances and additional checks before placing prisoners in RRCs *1069 for longer than six months. It may have been preferable for the BOP to 9 support its conclusions with empirical researchYN However, it was reasonable for the BOP to rely on its experience, even without having quantified it in the form of a study. See, e.g., Motor Vehicle Iv4fis. Assn v. Slate Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.s. 29. 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (Normally, an agency rule would be arbitrary and capricious if the agency offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence be fore the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise. (emphasis added)). The BOP has nearly 10 years of experience in pla cing inmates in RRCs, at least with respect to peri ods of six months or less. See Program Statement 7310.04, at 8 (noting that the program went into ef fect on Dec. 16, 1998). Although the BOPs experi ence with RRC placements of six months or less may not exactly parallel the issue here, its experi ence does provide some basis for understanding of how placements of varying lengths would affect most inmates. Accordingly, we cannot say that the BOPs determination was arbitrary or capricious.
...

man Servs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1124 (9th Cir.2009); see 5 U.S.C. 553. However, these notice and comment requirements are not applicable to interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or prac tice. MoraIlleraz, 601 f.3d at 939 (quoting 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A)). Of course, an agency can not, under the guise of interpreting a regulation create de facto a new regulation. Christensen v. harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 588, 120 5.Ct. 1655, 146 L.Ed.2d 621 (2000).

We have previously distinguished a general statement of policy, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), from a sub stantive rule: The critical factor to determine whether a direct ive announcing a new policy constitutes a rule or a general statement of policy is the extent to which the challenged [directive] leaves the agency, or its implementing official[,] free to ex ercise discretion to follow, or not to follow, the [announced] policy in an individual case.... To the extent that the directive merely provides guidance to agency officials in exercising their discretionary power while preserving their flexib ility and their opportunity to make individualized determination[s], it constitutes a general state ment of policy.... In contrast, to the extent that the directive narrowly limits administrative dis cretion or establishes a binding norm that so fills out the statutory scheme that upon application one need only determine whether a given case is within the rules criterion, it effectively replaces agency discretion with a new binding rule of sub stant[ive] law. Co/well, 558 F.3d at 1124 (quoting MadaLuna v. Fitzpatrick 813 F.2d 1006, 101314 (9th Cir.l987)) (all alterations but the second and the last in the original) (internal*1070 quotation marks omitted). Similarly, we have noted the distinction between interpretive rules and substantive rules: Generally, agencies issue interpretive rules to clarify or explain existing law or regulations so

FN9. We note that Congress has required the BOP to make annual reports to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees of information that may be useful to any the committees in determining if the Bur eau is utilizing community corrections fa cilities in an effective manner. 18 U.S.C. 3624(c)(5). No such reports are part of the record.
...

2. The Challenged Policies Are Not Substantive Rules Subject to the NoticeandComment Re quirement of 5 U.S.C. 553 [9] Under the APA, a federal administrative

agency is required to follow prescribed noticeand-comment procedures before promulgating sub stantive rules. CoIwell v. Dept of Health & I-lu-

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

5/13/2011 Appendix 045

Page 11 of 12

Page 12 628 F.3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211 (Cite as: 628 F.3d 1059) as to advise the public of the agencys construc tion of the rules it administers. However, [i]f a rule is inconsistent with or amends an existing le gislative rule, then it carmot be interpretive. This is because a rule that is inconsistent with a rule promulgated subject to notice and comment would impose new rights or obligations and would require compliance with the 553 proced ures. !lraMe,vz, 601 F.3d at 940 (alteration in the original) (internal citations omitted) (quoting Gun derson v. Hocl 268 F.3d 1149. 1154 (9th Cir.2001)). [101 The ultimate question is what did the new [memoranda] do? Gunderson, 268 F.3d at 1154. As discussed above, the challenged policies are consistent with the statute. Further, the policies in the memoranda merely provide[ 1 guidance to agency officials in exercising their discretionary power while preserving their flexibility and their opportunity to make individualized determina tion[s]. Come/I, 558 F.3d at 1124 (second altera tion in the original) (quoting AfadaLuoa, 8 i 3 F.2d at 1013). The policies provide that in the normal case, six months is sufficient placement in a RRC, but the policies allow BOP staff to determine what constitutes the unusual or extraordinary circum stances for which six months is not sufficient. Sim ilarly, the requirement that the Regional Director approve placements of more than six months merely assigns a particular official the responsibil ity of exercising the authority delegated to the BOP and its Director by statute. Although Petitioners provided statistics suggesting that this language (unusual or extraordinary circumstances) has been interpreted strictly in some regions, including the BOPs Western Region (which encompasses FCI Sheridan), these statistics also indicate that greater numbers of prisoners in other regions have been placed in RRCs for longer than six months. These regional differences demonstrate that the BOPs rule allows staff to make individualized de terminations and does not create a new binding rule of substantive law. Accordingly, we conclude that the challenged policies are not substantive rules; thus, they are not subject to the noticeand-comment requirements of 553 of the APA. III. CONCLUSION The SCA does not require the BOP to make any placements in a RRC for longer than six months; the statute affords the BOP the option to make placements up to 12 months. Because the agencys construction is entitled to some deference under Skidrnore, and because the BOP used its ex perience in placing prisoners in RRCs in crafting its policies, we conclude that the policies are based on a reasonable construction of the SCA. Similarly, al though documentation and empirical evidence may be desirable, the BOP permissibly relied on its ex perience administering RRC placements in crafting its policies, and those policies are not arbitrary or capricious. Finally, because the challenged policies are not binding rules, but instead allow implement ing officials to use their discretion in individual cases, the BOP was not required to promulgate the policies through the APAs notice-and-comment procedures. The judgment of the district court is AF FIRMED. C.A.9 (Or.),2010. Sacora v. Thomas 628 F3d 1059, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15,084, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18,211 END OF DOCUMENT

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

5/13/2011 Appendix 046

Page 12 of 12

Case: 10-35553 02/15/2011

Page: 1 of 1

ID: 7649478 DktEntry: 27

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

TIM RAY SACORA, Petitioner Appellant,

-

LARRY L. BEAMAN; TODD H. SONOBE, Petitioners

V.
-

No. 10-3 5553 DC No. 3:08-CV-00578 MA D. Ore.

Intervenors,

ORDER JEFF E. THOMAS, Warden, Federal Prison Camp, Sheridan, Oregon, Respondent Appellee.
-

Before:

TASHIMA, PAEZ, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Paez and Clifton vote to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Tashima so recommends. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on en banc rehearing. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(f). The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied.

Appendix 047

28 C.F.R.

570.20. Purpose.

The purpose of this subpart is to provide the procedures of the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) for designating inmates to pre-release community confinement or home detention. (a) Community confinement is defined as residence in a community treatment center, halfway house, restitution center, mental health facility, alcohol or drug rehabilitation center, or other community correctional facility (including residential re-entry centers); and participation in gainflil employment, employment search efforts, community service, vocational training, treatment, educational programs, or similar facility-approved programs during non-residential hours.

(b) Home detention is defined as a program of confinement and supervision that restricts the defendant to his place of residence continuously, except for authorized absences, enforced by appropriate means of surveillance by the probation office or other monitoring authority. 28 C.F.R.

570.21. Time-frames.

(a) Community confinement. Inmates may be designated to community confinement as a condition of pre-release custody and programming during the final months of the inmates term of imprisonment, not to exceed twelve months. (b) Home detention. Inmates may be designated to home detention as a condition of pre-release custody and programming during the final months of the inmates term of imprisonment, not to exceed the shorter of ten percent of the inmates term of imprisonment or six months. (c) Exceeding time-frames. These time-frames may be exceeded when separate statutory authority allows greater periods of community confinement as a condition of pre-release custody. 28 C.F.R.

570.22. Designation.

Inmates will be considered for pre-release community confinement in a manner consistent with 18 U.S.C. section 362 1(b), determined on an individual basis, and of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community, within the time-frames set forth in this part.

Appendix 048

5 U.S.C.

553. Rule making

(a)

This section applies, according to the provisions thereof; except to the extent that there is involved (1) a military or foreign affairs function of the United States; or (2) a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.

(b)

General notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal Register, unless persons subject thereto are named and either personally served or otherwise have actual notice thereof in accordance with law. The notice shall include (1) a statement of the time, place, and nature of public rule making proceedings; (2) reference to the legal authority under which the rule is proposed; and (3) either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved. Except when notice or hearing is required by statute, this subsection does not apply-(A) to interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; or (B) when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.

(c)

After notice required by this section, the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose. When rules are required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing, sections 556 and 557 of this title apply instead of this subsection.

(d)

The required publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except(1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction; (2) interpretative rules and statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.

(e)

Each agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.

Appendix 049

5 U.S.C.

706. Scope of review

To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall-(1) compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and (2) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be-(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; (D) without observance of procedure required by law; (E) unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or (F) unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.

Appendix 050

PS 7310.04 12/16/98 Page 8

Referrals to CCM offices should include a recommendation regarding the length of stay (range), such as recommending 60 to 90 days or 90 to 120 days, etc. This range of at least 30 days allows the CCM to match population needs with budgetary and CCC bed space resources, a process which requires this flexibility. However, there will be cases when the institution, for various management reasons, wants the 0CM to place the inmate not earlier than a specific date. Then, the CCC referral form should specify a recommended placement date rather than a range and further state that the CCM should not adjust that date. The CCM shall adhere to the recommended date, with any adjustment only being downward if budget and/or bed space constraints are a factor. The following CCC referral guidelines apply: (1) An inmate may be referred up to 180 days, with placement beyond 180 days highly unusual, and only possible with extraordinary justification. In such circumstances, the Warden shall contact the Regional Director for approval and the Chief USPO in the inmates sentencing district to determine whether the sentencing judge objects to such placement. (2) The ultimate goal is to maximize each eligible inmates chances for successful release and a lawabiding life. (3) When an inmate has a history of escape or failure in one or more CC Programs, careful review and consideration should be given regarding the suitability of participation and the length of placement. (4) Inmates with minor medical conditions or disabilities may also be considered for community placement. Inmates are required to assume financial responsibility for their health care while assigned to community programs. Such inmates must provide sufficient evidence to institution staff of their ability to pay for health care while at a CCC prior to the referral being made. When an inmate is unable or unwilling to bear the cost of necessary health care, the inmate shall be denied placement. (5) Inmates who have been approved for CCC referral and are otherwise appropriate for camp placement shall be transferred to a camp for intermediate placement. The inmate should have completed the Institution Release Preparation Program at the parent institution. The parent institution shall complete the CCC referral packet and the camp should be closer to the inmates release residence. This process should be completed to allow the

Appendix 051

U,S. Department of Justice

Federai Bureau of Psons

Waskingio, 1). C. 20534

pril 14, 2008

I440RDU1 FOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

FROM:

oyce K. Conley, Assistant irector Correctional Programs Division

Kathleen M. Kenney Assistant Director/General Counsel

SUBJECT:

Pre-Re1ease R.esidential Re-Entry Center Placements Following the Second Chance Act of 2007

The Second chance Act of 2007 (hereinafter referred to as te Act), Pub. L. No. l10-l9, was signed into law April 9, 2008. rnong its many provisions, the Act changes the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) statutory authorities for making prorelease Residential Re-Entry Center (ARC) placement decisions. This memorandum provides staff guidance for implementing those changes. Guidance regarding other ureau policies affected y the Act will be issued, as necessary, under separate cover. If necessary, further assistance should be sought from your regional Correctional Programs. Community Corrections, and Regional Counsel or Consolidated Legal Center offices.

1 For your convenienoe, copies of 18 U.S.C. 36Z1 and 3624(0), as attended by the Act, are included with this memorandum as attachments. Additionally, for your convenience, these copies illustrate the previous text as c,jt, and the new text as edline.

Appendix 052

I.

What are the statutory changes to RC placement autbrities?

As interpreted by the Office of General Counsel, the Acts statutory changes affect the Bureaus RRC placement procedures as follows (A) Pre-Release RRC Placement imeframe tncreased to 12 Months The prerelease RRC placement timeframe is increased to a percentage of maximum allowable 12 months. There is 3624(c) (1) U.S.C. served limitation. See 18 term to be (amended) The Act Individualized Placement Decisions Reuixed requires that prerelease RRC placement decisions be made on an individual basis in every inmates case, according to new criteria in the Act, as well as the criteria in 18 U.S.C. 3624(cH6Hamended). 18 U.S.C. 3621(b). As a result, the Bureaus categorical timeframe limitations on pre-release community confinement, found at 28 C.F.R, 570.20 and 570.21, are no lonaer applicable, 3 and must no loncer be followed.
-

(B)

(C)

The Act provides Court Recommendations Lack Binding Effect that a sentencing court order, recommendation, or request directing an inmates placement in an P.RC lacks binding As a result, the See 18 U.S.C. 3621(b) (amended). effect. 4 Bureau is not required to follow such a directive.
-

II.

That procedures should staff use in making pre-release RRC decisions?

With minor adjustments (explained in the next section), staff should make inmates pre-release ?.RC placement decisions on an individual basis using current Bureau policy, Program Statement No. 7310.04, Community Corrections Center (CCC) Utilization and Transfer Procedure (12/16/1998) (hereinafter referred to as

2 he prerelease home confinement timeframe remains at a maximum six months, or ten erceaz of the term of imprisonment of thet prisoner, 3624(c)(2) (amended). See 18 U.S.C. whichever is shorter.

The Act requires the Bureau to issue new federal regulations The federal regulation process regarding pre-release RRC placements. Bureau staff will be rulemaking) wIll take several months to complete. informed as soon as new regulations take effect. Sentencing court recommendations fo a particular type institution, however, remain a factor to be considered when making pre-release inra, Section au. (C) (4). RRC placement decisions.

Appendix 053

PS 7310.04) As indicated in Section 1. (B> above, the Bureaus categorical timeframe limitations on pre-release community confinement, found at 28 C.F.R. 570.20 and 570.21, are no loncer app1icab1e and must no longer be followed. Similarly, any previous guidance memorandums that were issued regarding those regulations are no longer aoplicable, and must no loncer be followed.
.

III. tha.t procedural adjustments to cu.rrent policy are required? Staff must comply with PS 7310.04 in considering inmates for pre release RRC placements, with the following adjustments: (A) Disregaxd Section 5, Statutory Authority Because the Act amends the Bureaus statutory authorities related to pre release RRC placements, the quoted passages in Section 5 of PS 7310.04 must be disregarded. Instead, if needed, refer to the amended versions included with this memorandum as attachments.
-

(B)

Reiew Inmates for Pre-Release RC Placements 17-19 Months Before Projected P.elease Dates Because the Act increases the maximum available pre-release RRC placement tirneframe to 12 months, Bureau staff must review inmates for pre-release RRC placements earlier than provided in PS 7310.04. Specifically, inmates must now be reviewed for pre-release RRC placements 17-1 months before their projected release dates.
-

(C)

The Act requires Criteria for Pre-Release RRC Placements that inmates be individually considered for pre-release RRC placements using the following fivefactor criteria from 18 U.S.C. 3621(b):
-

(1)

(2)
(3) (4)

(5)

resources of the facility contemplated; nature and circumstances of the offense; history and characteristics of the prisoner; statement by the court that imposed the sentence: concerning the purposes for which the sentence to imprisonment was determined to be warranted; or recommending a type of penal or correctional (b> facility as appropriate; and Any pertinent policy statement issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
As of this memorandums date, the U.S. Sentencing Commissico hes

The The The Any (a)

not issued any policy stetements releted to the Bureaus prerelease RRC placement procedures.

Appendix 054

Assessing inmates under the above criteria necessarily 1 and includes Continuing to consider the more specific familiar, correctional management criteria found in PS 7310.04, including, but not limited to, the inmates needs for services, public safety, and the necessity of the In Bureau to manage its inmate population responsibly. doing so, staff must not view any of the criteria listed in PS 7310.04, especially Sections 9 and 10, or any other policy, as automatically precluding an inmates pre-release Rather, in accordance with the Act, each RRC placement. individual inmates pre-release RRC decision must be analyzed and supported under the five-factor criteria. Additionally, the Act requires staff to ensure that each prerelease RC placement decision is of sufficient duration to provide the greatest likelihood of successful reintegration into the community. See 18 U.S.C. 3624 (c) (6) (C) (amended). This means Bureau staff st approach every individual inmates assessment with the understanding that he/she is now eligible for a maximum of Provisions in 12 months prerelease RRC placement. PS 7310.04 that reflect any other possible maximum timeframe must be ignored. (D) Regional Director Approval Required for Pre-Release RRC While the Act makes inmates Placement Beyond Six Months eligible for a maximum of 12 months pre-release RRC placements, Bureau experience reflects inmates pre-release RRC needs can usually be accommodated by a placement of six months or less. Should staff determine an inmates pre release RRC placement may require greater than six months, the Warden must obtain the Regional Directors written concurrence before submitting the placement to the Community Corrections Manager.
-

IV.

Does the Act apply to inmates whose RC decisions have already been made?

Inmates previously reviewed for pre-release RRC placements Yes. under any circumstances, and not yet transferred to an RRC, must be reconsidered utilizing the standards set forth in this guidance memorandum, whereby they are eligible for a maximum of These reviews must be conducted by the 12 months placement. classification team and documented on the Inmate Activity record (BPA381.058) Any inmate whose Program Review is scheduled at a time when consideration for a 12 month RRC placement is not feasible, will need to be reviewed and documented as indicated above. 4.-

Appendix 055

.
MZMORRNDTJM FOR CX5F XECUTIVB OFPICER.S

U.S. Department of Federal Bureau. ofPrisons

Wash ngoi, D.C. 20534

Noveber 14, 2008

jbihc,
FROM

M4ej/
.

Kathleen N. Kenzzey
Assistant Director/General Counsel

Joyce K. Conley, AssistanE Director Correctional Programs Division

c-_,

sUBJECT:

Inmate Requests for Transfer to Residential Reentry Centers

This memorandum provides guidance to ureau of Prisons (Bureau) staff for considering and responding to inmate requests for transfer to Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) when more than 12-months remain from their projected release date. Questions regarding this guidance should be directed to the Correctional Programs Branch, and/or your Regional Counsel or Consolidated Legal Center. tndividualiz ed Consideration Required
Inmates are legally eligible to be placed in an RRC at any time during their prison sentence. Federal Courts have made clear that RRCs are penal or correctional facilities within the meaning of the applicable statutes staff cannot, therefore, automat.ca deny an z.nmates request for transfer to a RRC Rather, .zimate requests for RRC placement must receive
irevioua guidance titled re-Re1eas&Residentia1 Rs-ntry Center

Placements Fo11owin the Second ance LOt of 2007, was issued April 14, 20O8 and remains in fufl effect. That guLdance instructs staff how to review inmates for pre-release sac placement during their last 12-montha of incarceration A copy of that gu.dazce is .xLcluded w.th this memorandum as an attachment Ragulat ions relating to that guidance were issued on October 21, 2008 and are located at 28 C F S 57U 20 tht-u 570 22 {73 F 2440)

44t - -, -

Appendix 056

individualized consideration. In other words, staff cannot say that an inmate, whatever the circumstances, is automatically Rather, staff must first inelible for transfer to a RRC review the inmates request on its individual merits, in accordance with policy, and as explained in this guidance..
Timing of Reviews

If an inmate requests transfer to an RRC prior to the prorelease time frame of 12-months from release, staff must individually consider the request, iust as they would any other request for lower security transfer. There is no need, however, to immediately pert ornt the individi.aiized review at the moment it is Rather, the inmate should be informed that his/her submitted request wiil be fully reviewed in conUflCtiOn with the next 2 scheduled Program Review. When informing inmates of the timing for review of transfer requests, it is vitally important that staff j inform the inmate (either orally or in writing) that he/she is inelicrible for transfer to a RRC. Telling an inmate that he/she is ineligible for RRC placement is the same as automatically denying the inmate from even being considered for such placement, and is not in accord with Bureau policy. Designation B2view Factors and Policy At the scheduled Program Review meeting where the inmates RRC transfer request is considered, staff should review (1) (2) (3) (4)
the resources of the facility contemplated; the nature and circumstances of the offense the history arid characteristics of the prisoner, any statement by the court that imposed the sentence (A) concerning the puxposes 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.

These five factors are the foundation of Bureau Program Statement No. 5100.08, Inmate Security Designation and Custoy Classification. That policy instructs that (elach inmate will
2 Inmate gxievances claiming the current facility designation is inappropriate and seeking a different or lower security level (o RRC) :t shoold be responded to in t1Ls fas)ion as Well.

-2

A.

Appendix 057

b placed in a facility commensurate with their security and pzogram needs through an objective and consistent system of )iassification which also allows staff to ezorcise their ofessional udgement. Silaff should also consider the resources of avaIlable RRCs, which aze procured by the Bureau primarily to assist inmates in reintegrating into the community during the last 12months of the prison sentence As stated in Bureau Program Statement No 7310 04, Community Corrections Center (CCC) Utilization and .uansfer Procedures, 3 RRCs provide a transitional environment for inmates nearing the end of their sentences The level of structure and supervision available at these facilities is designed to assure accountability, provide program opportunities in employment counseling and placement, substance abuse, and aid xnates in acquiring daily life skills so as to successfully 1 ir reintegrate into the community at large An RRC placement beyond six months should only occur when there are unusual or extraordinary circumstances justifying such placement, and the Regional Director concurs. Xxform the
Inmate of

the Decision

I staff determine, in the exercise of their professional j144gement and after individualized review, that the inmates ,purent designation is commensurate with his/her security and zogramming needs, the inmate will be informed that the current designation is appropriate, and that the transfer request is dnied The inmate can further be specifically informed, based on that assessment, that a requested transfer to an RRC is iriapropripte. If staff determine the inmate is appropriate for a RRC transfer, unit team should request a transfer pursuant to the April 14, 2Q08 guidance As indicated therein, RRC transfers for more than te last six months of the inmates prison sentence require the Rgional Directors concurrence. kttachment

Although this policy uses the tarts Community CorrectIons epters that term was cIangod to Residential Reentry Centers by memorandum dqed March 31, 2006, by John N Vanyur, Assistant Director, Correctional rpgrama Division The change was made to provide a clearer description of ZhI programs and services- being offered in such facilities,

A00335
Appendix 058

Page 1

?>> Martan Callahan 11/18/2008 11:37 AM> >> Hi, NO, I am not working on the discovery 7 request and I did not know tht there was such a request, or such a case filed. I am bying to nd out if there Is any data to substantiate the length of time in a half way house placement is optimally x number of months. 6-month period literally one of or was there some data-driven or empirica That is, was the 1 tiadItlon, l basis for that time frame? At one me man remember that there were studies that indic y years ago, I ated recidivism would be greatest within the first few weeks 90 days and that it would tend to drop off after the initial period. I worked on one of those studies but coul d not locate a copy. Fve done a 1t of searching of the literature, but so far have not found anythlng to conf months was empirically based. t irm that the 6I dd ask Jerry Vroegh If there was such data for BOP, and I asked that ofJody Klei with Jennifer Batcheider if there were BOP n-Safran, who works statistics on length-of-time in RRC as relat ed to recidivism, I believe Jerry said that the BOP does have som e releases, but I have not seen any of the data. data which shows success rates in the 90%s for RRC

ADD5fl1
Appendix 059