Ramsey, Jr. v. United States Parole Commission
82 F. Supp. 3d 293
D.D.C.2015Background
- Charles W. Ramsey Jr. received combined federal/DC sentences in the 1970s with a six-year special parole term; he was released on parole in 1989 and regular parole was scheduled to end in 2007.
- In 1995 Ramsey was arrested and later (after trial) convicted in D.D.C. for possession with intent to distribute; in 2004 a §2255 proceeding vacated that conviction and he entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea in this Court for time served plus supervised release (2004 Plea Agreement) that contemplated immediate release from the courthouse to begin supervised release.
- Upon his 2004 release the U.S. Parole Commission executed a parole violator detainer based on the plea, revoked parole in March 2005, denied street-time credit, and set a presumptive reparole date; Ramsey challenged that revocation in a §2241 petition filed in the S.D. W. Va., which granted relief in 2007 ordering immediate release to supervised release.
- The Parole Commission granted parole in the older cases (subject to backup time) and Ramsey was released in 2007; in 2010 he was convicted in D.C. Superior Court for maintaining a gambling premises, the Commission revoked parole, forfeited street time, and set a new reparole date — extending supervision into 2025.
- Ramsey filed the present §2241 petition in D.D.C. arguing (1) the 2007 West Virginia order implicitly terminated his older parole so the Commission lacked authority to parole/revoke him, and (2) the Commission miscalculated his parole term (denied street time and mis-scored his Salient Factor Score). The Court denies relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Ramsey did not fully exhaust Parole Commission appeals but seeks judicial relief now because of court interpretation issues | Government: failure to exhaust bars review of parole decisions | Court excused exhaustion because resolution requires interpreting a federal plea and a district-court judgment (issues outside agency expertise) |
| Did the 2007 West Virginia order terminate Ramsey's earlier parole? | Ramsey: the West Virginia order released him "on supervised release and only supervised release," implicitly terminating older parole so Commission lacked authority | Gov: West Virginia ordered release to supervised release in the 95–0326 case but did not terminate parole in the 1970s cases | Court: West Virginia ordered immediate supervised release in 95–0326 but did not terminate parole from the 1970s cases; Parole Commission retained authority |
| Validity/effect of Parole Commission’s March 2005 revocation and denial of street-time credit | Ramsey: 2005 revocation conflicted with plea and West Virginia order, thus was a nullity and denied street-time credit should be undone, making him then on special parole in 2010 | Gov: Plea barred reincarceration on the basis of the 95–0326 conviction but did not prevent Commission from forfeiting street time for a drug conviction or from considering that conviction in later decisions | Court: 2005 forfeiture of street time was lawful under statutes (crime punishable by imprisonment) and therefore not nullified by plea or West Virginia order |
| Whether plea Agreement bound Parole Commission (precluding use of the 2004 conviction in Commission decisions) | Ramsey: plea ¶5 (no further prosecution) should be read to bind Commission from acting on same facts | Gov: Plea ¶5 bound only the U.S. Attorney’s Office; it did not bind Parole Commission | Court: Plea did not bind Parole Commission; Commission could consider the 2004 conviction for street time and scoring; recalculation claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716 (1985) (court notification duties when prisoner release is imminent)
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) (parolees are "in custody" for habeas jurisdiction)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992) (purposes and limits of administrative-exhaustion doctrine)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecutor must honor plea promises that induced plea)
- Ash v. Reilly, 431 F.3d 826 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (standard for overturning Parole Commission decisions: abuse of discretion or lack of rational basis)
- Doganiere v. United States, 914 F.2d 165 (9th Cir. 1990) (§2241 is proper vehicle to challenge Parole Commission decisions)
- Gambino v. E.W. Morris, 134 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 1998) (standard for reviewing parole decisions)