George Vasquez v. Strada
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11087
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Vasquez was sentenced in 1993 SDNY to 262 months for conspiracy to distribute heroin and for possession of heroin.
- In 1996, Vasquez was sentenced in MDPA to 14 months, consecutive to the NY sentence, for possession of a prohibited object.
- His current projected release date with good conduct time was October 10, 2012.
- The Second Chance Act of 2007 expands pre-release placement eligibility and requires an individualized BOP determination under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b).
- Regulations permit community confinement placement; 42 U.S.C. § 17541 incentives may include maximum allowable RRC placement.
- On April 20, 2011, Vasquez’s Unit Team recommended 151–180 days in an RRC, considering history, resources, discipline, employment, family, and programming; Warden approved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was exhaustion of administrative remedies required? | Vasquez argued exhaustion unnecessary before petition. | BOP argued Vasquez failed to exhaust administratively. | Exhaustion required |
| Did BOP properly balance 3621(b) factors plus the § 17541 sixth factor? | Vasquez contended misapplication of factors to favor max placement. | BOP conducted individualized review including 17541 factor. | No abuse; proper balancing |
| Were the § 17541 incentives improperly created or required by the statute? | Raises concern that incentives were not properly implemented. | Statute requires incentives but does not mandate a specific incentive. | Incentives not required to be specific; proper consideration given |
| Did the petition fail on merits under abuse-of-discretion review? | Argued BOP failed to comply with reentry initiative. | Claims lack merit; BOP acted within discretion. | No merit; district court decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005) (exhaustion and reviewability of BOP determinations in § 2241 petitions)
- Moscato v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757 (3d Cir. 1996) (administrative exhaustion required when not purely statutory construction)
- Bradshaw v. Carlson, 682 F.2d 1050 (3d Cir. 1981) (statutory construction not always require exhaustion)
- Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476 (3d Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for BOP § 3621(b) determinations)
- United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256 (3d Cir. 2000) (courts appellate jurisdiction over § 2241 challenges to BOP decisions)