Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Michael Austin v. United States Parole Commission, 448 F.3d 197, 2d Cir. (2006)
Michael Austin v. United States Parole Commission, 448 F.3d 197, 2d Cir. (2006)
3d 197
E. Lawrence Barcella, Jr. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner-Appellant.
Background
6
was passed it was understood that "imprisonment for life" rarely meant that a
prisoner would remain in prison for the rest of his life, but would serve a
specified term of imprisonment, termed the "tariff," and be released on parole,
known as release "on licence," when appropriate. See R. (Anderson) v. Sec'y of
State for the Home Dep't [2002] UKHL 46, [2003] 1 A.C. 837, 842 (appeal
taken from Eng.). Once a convicted murderer serves his tariff term his case is
referred to the Parole Board and he is released "on licence" unless the Board
concludes that continued confinement is necessary for the protection of the
public. See id. [2003] 120 Ga. 104, 47 S.E. 912, 1 A.C. at 875. A tariff-expired
mandatory life sentence prisoner has the right to release, no matter how heinous
his offense of conviction, if he is judged to present no continuing threat to
public safety. R. (Roberts) v. Parole Bd. [2005] UKHL 45, [2005] 2 A.C. 738,
750.
7
A term of actual imprisonment can be imposed that extends to the entire life of
the individual, however, if the circumstances of the murder are particularly
atrocious. See Anderson, [2003] 1 A.C. at 874. A term of actual imprisonment
that extends for the life of the individual is known as a "whole life tariff." See,
e.g., Sec'y of State for the Home Dep't ex parte Hindley, [2001] 1 A.C. 410, 414
(H.L.) (appeal taken from Eng.). A British "mandatory life sentence" does not
mean imprisonment for life unless a whole life tariff is imposed. See Stafford v.
United Kingdom, 35 Eur. Ct. H.R. (2002) 1121, 1143-44, quoted in Anderson,
[2003] 1 A.C. at 878-79 (mandatory life sentence does not impose
imprisonment for life as punishment).
Pursuant to the sentencing procedure in place in 1997, the trial judge advised
the Lord Chief Justice on an appropriate tariff for Austin, taking into account
the circumstances of the offense, his dangerousness and his likelihood to reoffend, among other factors. The Lord Chief Justice reviewed the trial judge's
recommendation of not less than twenty years to serve, and in turn
recommended to the Home Secretary that Austin receive a term of twenty-four
years. The Home Secretary, finding no mitigating circumstances in Austin's
case, fixed his tariff at twenty-four years to serve in prison.1
10
The United States Parole Commission bears the responsibility for determining
a release date for transferred prisoners, taking into consideration any
Following a hearing held on January 23, 2003, an examiner for the Parole
Commission recommended that the Commission order that Austin remain in
prison for life, followed by a 60-month period of supervised release. As
grounds for her recommendation she stated that the Parole Commission was
required to apply the sentencing guidelines and to impose the sentence called
for by the guidelines, absent grounds for departure. She found no grounds for
departure. The hearing examiner also concluded that the recommended
sentence did not violate the terms of the Treaty.
12
On March 18, 2004, the Parole Commission completed a worksheet for transfer
treaty determination wherein it also calculated Austin's total offense level under
the Sentencing Guidelines at 43, and his criminal history category at I, for a
guideline range of life imprisonment. Applying this calculation, and apparently
adopting the hearing examiner's recommendations, the Commission ordered
that Austin serve a life sentence of imprisonment without the possibility of
release, to be followed by a sixty-month term of supervised release.
13
Discussion
I. The Prisoner Transfer Statutes
14
Chapter 306 of Title 18, United States Code, governs transfers of offenders to
or from foreign countries. 18 U.S.C.A. 4100-4115 (West 2000 &
Supp.2005). Section 4106A provides that, for offenses committed after
November 1, 1987, 2 see 18 U.S.C.A. 4106A (c), the United States Parole
The transfer provisions of Chapter 306 apply "only when a treaty providing for
such transfer is in force," and apply "to transfers of offenders . . . from a foreign
country pursuant to such a treaty." 18 U.S.C.A. 4100(a). The laws of the
United States apply to offenders transferred to the United States, unless the
treaty or another provision of Chapter 306 provides otherwise. Id. 4103. The
Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons is the
treaty in force that provides for the transfer of offenders from the United
Kingdom to this country.
16
17
In Austin's case, the United States elected to continue the enforcement of the
original sentence. In cases of continued enforcement, the administering state is
"bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence as determined by the
sentencing state." Treaty, art. 10 1, 1496 U.N.T.S. at 96. If the original
sentence is incompatible with the law of the administering state, the
administering state may not substitute its own sanction, but may adapt the
sentence to a punishment prescribed by its own law for a similar offense, as
long as the adaptation does "not aggravate, by its nature or duration, the
sanction imposed in the sentencing state." Treaty, art. 10 2.
19
20
21
22
Because Austin's punishment derives from his violation of English law, he does
not enjoy the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury impaired by the mandatory
application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 231-33, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The
Parole Commission, however, was never bound by the Guidelines, and is only
24
The Parole Commission has the discretion, and the statutory duty, to set any
release date from incarceration provided that it has considered the applicable
sentencing guidelines for the equivalent offense,3 considered all of the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), supplied reasons for its decision, and has not
exceeded the term of imprisonment imposed by the foreign court. 18 U.S.C.A.
4106A(b)(1)(B), (C); see Cannon v. United States Dep't of Justice, 973 F.2d
1190, 1195 (5th Cir.1992). We therefore remand the case for the Parole
Commission to set an appropriate release date in accordance with 4106A(b)
and 3553(a). If the Parole Commission concludes that a non-Guidelines
sentence is appropriate, that determination will be reviewed for reasonableness
should it return to our Circuit.
Conclusion
25
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Notes:
*
The Honorable William K. Sessions III, of the United States District Court for
the District of Vermont, sitting by designation
The procedure has since been amended to eliminate the Home Secretary's
involvement in determining the tariff, reserving that function to the judicial, not
the executive branchAnderson, [2003] 120 Ga. 104, 47 S.E. 912, 1 A.C. at 882.
The murder of which Austin was convicted was committed in March 1992