Summary
granting defendant's motion to correct sentence, where the B.O.P.'s subsequent policy change thwarted the court's intentions to sentence the defendant to a community corrections center
Summary of this case from Pearson v. U.S.Opinion
Criminal No. 00-276 (JRT/FLN)
January 22, 2003
Nathan P. Petterson and James Lackner, Assistant United States Attorneys, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for plaintiff.
Allan H. Caplan, Allan H. Caplan Assoc., Minneapolis, MN, for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is now before the Court on the defendant's motion to correct sentence. The Court heard argument from both parties on January 21, 2003. After considering the parties' written submissions and oral arguments, the Court granted defendant's motion. This memorandum opinion further explains the Court's reasoning.
BACKGROUND
On May 15, 2002, this Court sentenced defendant Michelle Canavan ("Canavan") to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for 12 months, to be served at the Volunteers of America ("VOA") facility in Roseville, Minnesota, with work release and medical appointment privileges. This was to be followed by 180 days of home detention and three years of supervised release. The sentence was imposed following the government's motion for a downward departure under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1 and its motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) for a departure below the five-year mandatory minimum sentence. The particular sentence was recommended to the Court by the United States Probation Office and was not opposed by the government. Canavan began serving her sentence on June 17, 2002 and her projected release date is June 14, 2003.
On December 23, 2002, the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") announced a new policy under which inmates could no longer serve terms of imprisonment in community correction centers ("CCCs") like the VOA facility. The new policy is prospective, with one important exception. The policy applies retroactively to inmates assigned to CCCs who, as of December 16, 2002, had more than 150 days remaining to serve on their prison terms. These inmates are being re-designated to federal prisons.
This retroactive exception applies to Canavan. On December 16, 2002, Canavan had approximately 183 days remaining on her sentence. The BOP informed her on December 23, 2002 that she would be relocated to a federal prison within 30-45 days. Canavan is now scheduled to be moved to the Federal Correctional Institution at Pekin, Illinois on February 3, 2003, which is 131 days before the completion of her sentence.
ANALYSIS
Canavan asks the Court to correct her sentence pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This rule provides:
After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.
The Court now finds it necessary to correct the record. At the May 2002 sentencing, the Court made it clear that it specifically intended to impose a sentence permitting Canavan to continue her job and retain access to her doctors. At that time, it appeared that these conditions could be realized through a term of imprisonment, served at the VOA facility. The BOP's subsequent policy change, however, thwarts this Court's intentions.
This Court sentenced Canavan as it did because of the particular circumstances of her case. Canavan is a first-time offender with an otherwise clean criminal record. She fully cooperated with the government and gave significant assistance in prosecuting her co-defendants. Furthermore, Canavan has serious medical problems that demand regular treatment and consultation with her physicians in Minnesota. Canavan also has a long history at her job, and relies on it to pay her home mortgage payments. If Canavan was imprisoned, she would lose her job, her home, and access to her doctors. For these reasons, the Court imposed a sentence that was difficult, but would not destroy all remnants of the life she had known. The BOP's new policy misrepresents the Court's sentence no less than if the Clerk had omitted or mistakenly transcribed some important part of the sentence. See United States v. McAfee, 832 F.2d 944, 926 (5th Cir. 1987) (affirming district court's power to correct a mistake in the written judgment so that it correlated with the intent of the sentencing court). Had the policy been in place in May 2002, or had this Court known of the impending policy change, it certainly would have sentenced Canavan to a term of probation.
The Court rejects the government's assertion that it is without jurisdiction to correct the record in this manner. The Court now corrects this situation, but its changes are merely technical; they do not modify Canavan's sentence in any real way. See United States v. Tramp, 30 F.3d 1035, 1037 (8th Cir. 1994) ("Rule 36 does not authorize a district court to modify a sentence at any time." (emphasis original)). From a practical standpoint, Canavan's sentence is no different than it was in May 2002. Indeed, this decision merely ensures that Canavan will serve the sentence that the Court intended.
Canavan is sentenced to four years probation. All the conditions that were previously styled as conditions of supervised release now apply to her probation. The Court further orders that under Canavan's probation, she must submit to community confinement at the Volunteers of America, with work release and medical appointment release privileges for the period of twelve months. More specific details of Canavan's probation will be described in the Judgment and Commitment Order accompanying this memorandum.