2023.05.02 - Appellant Opening Brief (US v. Sastrom)

Case: 22-1750 Document: 00118004949 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2023 Entry ID: 6565387
No. 22-1750
———————————————————
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
———————————————————
UNITED STATES,
Appellee
v.
ROY SASTROM,
Defendant-Appellant
———————————————————
On Appeal from the U.S. District Court

For the District of Massachusetts
No. 1:09-cr-10168
Hon. Patti B. Saris, U.S. District Judge
———————————————————
BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ROY SASTROM
———————————————————
Max Rodriguez
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
111 Broadway, Suite 1804
New York, NY 10006
(646) 290-7509
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant,
Roy Sastrom
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................... 5
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................. 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................. 6
I. Mr. Sastrom’s Original Commitment............................................ 6
II. Federal Criminal History .............................................................. 6

A. Criminal Proceedings in the Districts of Connecticut and
Massachusetts .......................................................................... 6
III. Incarceration and Treatment in Custody...................................... 8
IV. Impending Release and Return to Whiting ................................ 10

A. PSRB Motion and Hearing ......................................................10
B. The district court modifies Mr. Sastrom’s terms of
supervised release. ..................................................................14
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................19
STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................21
ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................22
I. Overview of governing requirements for modification of

supervised release ....................................................................... 22
A. District courts are required to consider factors like
access to appropriate medical care when imposing
modified terms of supervised release. .....................................22
B. District courts need to modify conditions of supervised
release in an evidence-based way, oriented towards
reintegrating the defendant into the community
wherever possible. ...................................................................24
-i-
II. The district court’s order requiring Mr. Sastrom be

transported to Connecticut was a modification of his
terms of supervised release. ........................................................ 26
III. The district court abused its discretion by modifying the

terms of supervised release without considering the
mandatory factors. ...................................................................... 28
IV. This Court has authority to vacate the order and remand
for a further hearing re-considering the condition of
supervised release. ...................................................................... 32
CONCLUSION........................................................................................35
ADDENDUM ..........................................................................................36
- ii -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Jackson v. Coalter,
337 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2003) ..................................................................33
United States v. Albertson,

645 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2011) .................................................................25
United States v. Brooks,

889 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2018) ...................................................................25
United States v. Carrasco-De-Jesús,

589 F.3d 22 (1st. Cir. 2009) .................................................................21
United States v. D’Amario,

412 F.3d 253 (1st Cir. 2005) ................................................................22
United States v. DaSilva,

844 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2016) ....................................................................26
United States v. Del Valle-Cruz,

785 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2015) ..................................................................21
United States v. Engelhorn,

122 F.3d 508 (8th Cir. 1997) ................................................................25
United States v. Gillman,

478 F.3d 440 (1st Cir. 2007) ................................................................26
United States v. Gross,

307 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) ..............................................................29
United States v. Johnson,

529 U.S. 53 (2000) ................................................................................25
United States v. Medina,

779 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2015) ..................................................................25
United States v. Miller,

205 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2000) ..............................................................29
- iii -
United States v. Murdock,

735 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013) .................................................................28
United States v. Murray,

692 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2012) ........................................................... 25, 32
United States v. Orlando,

823 F.3d 1126 (7th Cir. 2016) ..............................................................28
United States v. Perry,

397 F. App’x 521 (11th Cir. 2008) ........................................................25
United States v. Reyes-Barreto,

24 F.4th 82 (1st Cir. 2022) ...................................................................22
United States v. Roy,

438 F.3d 140 (1st Cir. 2006) ................................................................25
United States v. Sepúlveda-Contreras,

466 F.3d 166 (1st Cir. 2006) ................................................................26
United States v. Smith,

445 F.3d 713 (3d Cir. 2006) .................................................................29
United States v. Wiltshire,

772 F.3d 976 (2d Cir. 2014) .................................................................22
Statutes & Rules
18 U.S.C. § 3553 .............................................................................. passim
18 U.S.C. § 3583 .............................................................................. passim
28 U.S.C. § 1291 ....................................................................................... 5
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 ...............................................................................24
Local Rule 11 ........................................................................................... 6
U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3 ............................................................................... 20, 27
- iv -
INTRODUCTION
This appeal arises from the modification of Roy Sastrom’s
conditions of supervised release, through which he was sent, over his
objection, to the state of Connecticut, where he was detained by state
authorities to be committed to a maximum-security unit at the Whiting
Forensic Hospital in Middletown, Connecticut (“Whiting”) following his
September 27, 2022 release from the United States Penitentiary in
Tucson, Arizona (“USP Tucson”). Mr. Sastrom’s doctors have opined this
continuation of his detention through involuntary commitment would be
detrimental to Mr. Sastrom’s mental health and potentially reverse much
of the significant progress Mr. Sastrom made during recent years in the
management of his mental illness while in federal custody.
Indeed, over the past 13 years, Mr. Sastrom received quality
psychiatric care while in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).
He made significant strides in his lifelong struggles with mental illness
and substance use. It was these strides that caused his BOP provider to
specifically recommend that he not be committed to an inpatient setting
(especially not maximum security) upon his release, and that to do so
would negatively impact his treatment. Mr. Sastrom’s sister even offered
1
to provide support and assistance if he were relocated near her in Florida.
This trajectory of Mr. Sastrom’s impactful care while in custody, creating
new community ties, and improved well-being, is the model for what we
all hope the criminal justice system can achieve.
But Mr. Sastrom never received the opportunity to reap the fruits
of his hard work while in custody. After the Connecticut Psychiatric
Review Board (“PSRB”) attempted to re-assert its nearly 30-year old
commitment order over Mr. Sastrom, Probation and Pretrial Services
sought to modify his conditions of supervised release to compel him to be
brought (or surrender) to Connecticut and committed at Whiting.
Notably, this civil commitment order was fully known to the district court
in 2009 when Mr. Sastrom was sentenced in the District of
Massachusetts. But no condition compelling his return to Connecticut
was imposed at that time.
As explained below, many data points weighed in favor of not
sending Mr. Sastrom to Connecticut, where he would be committed to
Whiting against his will. But the most persuasive evidence on that point
was Mr. Sastrom himself, who said the following at the hearing
2
concerning the proposed modification of his conditions of supervised
release:
And I’m really emotional right now because it’s,

like, everybody is looking at 14 years ago, and I’m
not that person 14 years ago. I’m not a danger to
myself anymore. I’m not a danger to anybody. And
if you look at my prison record, I mean, you’re
looking at infractions that are very minor and very
few. I’ve never assaulted anybody in the Bureau of
Prisons or anywhere else. And I want to be
reunited with my family. You know, I just lost my
mother last week…. And now I’m in a position
where I have values – I value my freedom, I value
my life, I value my health, I value my family – and
they want to take me and stick me in a mental
institution where I was abused for 14 straight solid
years. The trauma that was inflicted on me there
is unbelievable …. I’m not a danger to anybody ….
[and] there’s no chance of me committing a crime
today.
(App’x 90–92).1
Despite Mr. Sastrom’s objection, the district court imposed the
modification and did so without appropriate consideration of the litany of
mitigating evidence presented at the hearing.
District courts are obligated under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) to consider
individualized factors in an evidence-based way to determine whether
1 The abbreviation “App’x” herein refers to the Unsealed Appendix

(Volume 1 of 2), e-filed by CM/ECF.
3
modified conditions of supervised release are suitable for a particular
defendant at the time the condition is being considered. Here, every
salient data point about Mr. Sastrom’s current mental health weighed
in favor of his release and continued treatment in an outpatient setting
in compliance with his other conditions of federal supervised release.
The only factor in favor of committing him at Whiting in
Connecticut was that PSRB had requested it, all contemporary evidence
notwithstanding. By deciding it was obligated to defer to the PSRB
detainer order (although the detainer had no force to compel a federal
district court) and failing to appropriately weigh and consider mitigating
circumstances that committing Mr. Sastrom would not be beneficial to
his condition or ability to re-integrate into society, the district court
abused its discretion.
This Court should vacate the district court’s order, and remand for
a new hearing attended by Mr. Sastrom at which the appropriate factors
can be considered in deciding whether to order he be sent to Connecticut
as a modified condition of his supervised release, or whether it is best for
his continued mental health treatment and reintegration into society
that he receive outpatient treatment in another state while under the
4
supervision of Probation and Pretrial Services (while pending state-court
litigation challenging PSRB’s erroneous decision plays out).
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
The district court entered the appealed-from order on September
22, 2022. Sastrom noticed an appeal on October 4, 2022. This Court’s
jurisdiction arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
1. Whether the district court’s order requiring Mr. Sastrom to
report directly to Whiting in Connecticut was a modification of his
conditions of supervised release requiring consideration of the factors
enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
2. Whether the district court failed to consider the factors
enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) before modifying Mr. Sastrom’s
conditions of supervised release.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by modifying
Mr. Sastrom’s conditions of supervised release without considering the
factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I. Mr. Sastrom’s Original Commitment
After criminal proceedings related to alleged conduct on or about
October 23, 1992, Mr. Sastrom was found not guilty by reason of mental
disease or defect. Mr. Sastrom was committed to the jurisdiction of the
PSRB on or about July 13, 1994, for a period not to exceed 40 years by a
Connecticut Superior Court. (App’x 59, 97; Sealed App’x2 195–96, 211).
He began his commitment under PSRB’s jurisdiction, where he remained
at another unit of Whiting until May 2008. (Sealed App’x 211).
II. Federal Criminal History
A. Criminal Proceedings in the Districts of

Connecticut and Massachusetts
On June 3, 2008, Mr. Sastrom was arrested and transferred to the
Garner Correctional Institution in Newtown, Connecticut. (Sealed App’x
210). On October 22, 2008, Mr. Sastrom was indicted in the District of
2The term “Sealed App’x” herein refers to the “Sealed Supplemental

Appendix (Volume 2 of 2),” a proposed sealed second volume of the
appendix sent to this Court along with a motion for leave to file the
Sealed Supplemental Appendix (along with an unredacted version of
Appellant’s brief) under seal.
Consistent with Local Rule 11(d)(2), references to “the substance of the

sealed material” are redacted in this publicly-filed copy of Appellant’s
brief.
6
Massachusetts (the “Massachusetts Case”). (App’x 9–11). Later that
same year on November 19, 2008, Mr. Sastrom was indicted in the
District of Connecticut (the “Connecticut Case”) (App’x 35–37).
On May 11, 2009, the government filed a plea agreement through
which Mr. Sastrom agreed to plead guilty to two of the four counts in the
Connecticut Case. (App’x 39–43). On June 2, 2009, the Connecticut Case
was transferred to the District of Massachusetts. (App’x 30). Both cases
were assigned to District Judge Harrington (App’x 3, 30), and on June
23, 2009, Judge Harrington accepted Mr. Sastrom’s guilty plea in both
cases. (App’x 4–5, 30).
After a sentencing hearing on October 1, 2009, the district court
imposed the following sentence: (1) 180 months of imprisonment followed
by 36 months of supervised release in the Massachusetts Case (App’x 5);
and (2) 24 months imprisonment and 36 months of supervised release in
the Connecticut Case. (App’x 30). Both sentences were ordered to run
concurrently. (App’x 5, 30).
On December 14, 2009 and on February 2, 2010, Judge Harrington
entered the district court’s judgments in the Massachusetts and
Connecticut Cases, respectively. (App’x 16–27, 49–56).
7
And significantly, when considering the sentences to impose in each
case, Judge Harrington was fully aware of Mr. Sastrom’s challenging
youth and struggles with mental illness and substance use, as well as the
circumstances of his 1994 civil commitment order and the circumstances
of his commitment at Whiting. (See, e.g., Sealed App’x 211, 245, 247–50,
253).
Nevertheless, in both judgments, the district court did not include
any geographic specifications in the conditions of supervised release
about where Mr. Sastrom should be released or where he should live after
his prison sentence. (App’x 16–27, 49–56).
III. Incarceration and Treatment in Custody
In a turn for the better, and an outcome matching the highest
aspirations of our criminal justice system, Mr. Sastrom for the first time
made enormous strides in the management of his mental illness and
substance use. Despite significant obstacles and his long and challenging
history of mental illness and substance use, Mr. Sastrom’s federal
incarceration was characterized by strong improvement with respect to
both issues with the help of his providers while in custody.
8
During a hearing considering Mr. Sastrom’s application for
discharge from PSRB’s jurisdiction (i.e., a termination of the commitment
order and related detainer), substantial evidence was provided
demonstrating Mr. Sastrom’s positive response to treatment while in
BOP custody and improvement in his condition. (Sealed App’x 106–157).
That PSRB hearing included very specific testimony about Mr.
Sastrom’s condition.
3 (Sealed App’x 165).
(Sealed App’x 146),
3 Per this Court’s local rules, all information in this brief directly
referencing the substance of sealed materials have been redacted in this
publicly e-filed copy of the brief. Counsel for Defendant-Appellant has
separately moved for leave to file an unredacted brief under seal, along
with a proposed Supplemental Sealed Appendix.
9
In addition, the
In the June 22, 2022 hearing,
(Sealed App’x 110).
In describing his progress,
(Sealed
App’x 116–129). In summary, it was
(Sealed App’x 123) (emphasis
added).
11
(Sealed App’x 122, 151–52).
(Sealed App’x 163–64). In other words,
12
(Sealed App’x 164). Closer to the end of her
testimony,
All of the testimony described above was submitted to the district
court for its consideration when deciding whether to modify Mr.
Sastrom’s terms of supervised release. (App’x 32–33).
2. Decision
Despite the copious evidence laid out above supporting Mr.
Sastrom’s discharge, PSRB denied Mr. Sastrom’s application for
discharge and ordered that Mr. Sastrom return to Whiting upon his
release from USP Tucson and that he be confined under maximum
security conditions. (App’x 57, 59; Sealed App’x 204–209). PSRB’s
decision
13
(Sealed
App’x 204).
Mr. Sastrom, through separate counsel, has appealed the PSRB’s
decision in Connecticut Superior Court. Those proceedings are pending.
(App’x 59).
B. The district court modifies Mr. Sastrom’s terms

of supervised release.
1. Probation and Pretrial Services requests a

supervised release modification hearing.
On September 8, 2022 Probation and Pretrial Services requested a
status conference to discuss and request a proposed modification of
Sastrom’s conditions supervised release to order that he report directly
to Whiting in Connecticut upon his release from USP Tucson. The
memorandum requesting the status conference explained that Mr.
Sastrom’s Connecticut attorney “indicated that Mr. Sastrom would not
agree to this modification” upon request. (App’x 57).
That same day, the case was reassigned to Judge Saris, who
approved the request. (App’x 57). The next day, September 9, 2022, Mr.
Sastrom received appointed counsel in the District of Massachusetts and
a hearing was scheduled for the following week. (App’x 31). Mr. Sastrom’s
counsel and counsel for the United States submitted relevant documents
14
to the district court by email in advance of the hearing, which were later
docketed for purposes of this appeal, including: (1) the 2022 PSRB
hearing transcripts; (2) a letter from Mr. Sastrom’s sister to the district
court; (3) Mr. Sastrom’s application for discharge from the jurisdiction of
the PSRB (the petition at issue in the June 2022 hearing); and (4) the
PSRB’s memorandum of decision denying his application for discharge.
(App’x 32–33).
2. The Supervised Release Modification Hearing
The status conference took place on September 16, 2022. (App’x 67).
Mr. Sastrom participated remotely from USP Tucson. Mr. Sastrom’s case
manager informed the district court that usually upon their release
individuals “are provided a bus ticket or an airplane ticket” and (if subject
to a term of supervised release) need to comply with their conditions and
report to an assigned probation officer. (App’x 72). But in the case of Mr.
Sastrom, his case manager told the district court that they “don’t know
how he’s going to [be] release[d].” (App’x 72). Probation and Pretrial
Services’ memo to the district court strongly suggests that the reason for
the lack of any release plan was because “Staff [from Whiting] have
15
reported that Mr. Sastrom must report to their psychiatric hospital to
begin serving his civil commitment.” (App’x 57) (emphasis added).
An Assistant Attorney General from Connecticut explained to the
district court that the PSRB “sent a request to the regional director of the
Western Region at BOP” because “at present, his supervised release is
supposed to be in the jurisdiction of Massachusetts; that efforts are being
made to identify a process by which he’s either transferred or conditions
are modified such that he would be in Connecticut upon his release from
Arizona.” (App’x 74). The Connecticut AAG further clarified that “there
is no [Connecticut] entity that would have the authority to pick him
[Sastrom] up out of state.” (App’x 74). In other words, the Connecticut
authorities acknowledged that the detainer for Mr. Sastrom’s civil
commitment lacked the force of law necessary to take custody of him or
compel his extradition from another state to Connecticut.
Mr. Sastrom’s attorney before the district court proposed that Mr.
Sastrom report to “Probation in Boston” and “add a halfway house
condition … and that [the district court] stay any decision on the
[proposed Whiting] modification while the issue of whether or not he
needs to be confined to a maximum security mental institution continues
16
to be litigated in the state of Connecticut.” (App’x 77). Later in the
hearing, Mr. Sastrom’s counsel renewed her proposal and objection to the
proposed modification requiring Mr. Sastrom to report to or be sent to
Connecticut, explaining among other things that Connecticut’s detainer
based on the civil commitment order was not binding on the court, and
that the PSRB’s decision to deny Mr. Sastrom’s application for discharge
should not be accorded any deference because “it contradicts the
testimony of the BOP doctor; it even contradicts the testimony of the state
of Connecticut doctor. It is completely unfounded in fact and logic.” (App’x
86–87). Furthermore, she argued that Mr. Sastrom “has a good chance of
success on appeal” in Connecticut Superior Court, and that appeal
remains pending as of this date. (App’x 87).
Mr. Sastrom, for his part, addressed the district court. He
acknowledged his conduct and explained his medical history, and
presented the situation quite plainly:
And I’m really emotional right now because it’s,

like, everybody is looking at 14 years ago, and I’m
not that person 14 years ago. I’m not a danger to
myself anymore. I’m not a danger to anybody. And
if you look at my prison record, I mean, you’re
looking at infractions that are very minor and very
few. I’ve never assaulted anybody in the Bureau of
Prisons or anywhere else. And I want to be
17
reunited with my family. You know, I just lost my

mother last week…. And now I’m in a position
where I have values – I value my freedom, I value
my life, I value my health, I value my family – and
they want to take me and stick me in a mental
institution where I was abused for 14 straight solid
years. The trauma that was inflicted on me there
is unbelievable …. I’m not a danger to anybody ….
[and] there’s no chance of me committing a crime
today.
(App’x 90–92).
The district court even acknowledged that Mr. Sastrom was
“actually quite well-spoken” and that “it does sound as if you’ve made
progress.” Nevertheless, the district court said that “until that order is
lifted or mitigated, I can’t do anything.” (App’x 92).
The district court rejected the proposal, explaining “I can’t reverse
the Connecticut decision” (App’x 88) and “I’m not going to decide his
mental health status through the auspices of a supervised release
proceeding.” (App’x 89). Despite being the court of primary jurisdiction
with respect to Mr. Sastrom’s federal sentence and soon-to-commence
supervised release, the district court said “I’m not going to be a third
forum” (after Connecticut state and federal courts). (App’x 89).
18
3. One day after the hearing, the district court

orders Mr. Sastrom be sent to Connecticut over
his objection.
On September 21, 2022, Mr. Sastrom’s attorney in the district court
filed a memorandum further stating Mr. Sastrom’s opposition to the
proposed modification to the conditions of supervised release. (App’x 58–
64). One day later, on September 22, 2022, the district court ruled that
Mr. Sastrom was to “report directly to the Whiting Forensic Hospital”
upon his release from the Bureau of Prisons’ Custody. (App’x 65).
Mr. Sastrom is presently at the Whiting facility in Connecticut,
continuing to serve his 40-year civil commitment. To counsel’s knowledge
as of this date, Mr. Sastrom has no release plan and has not been
contacted by PSRB or anyone else about developing a release plan. His
appeal concerning the application for discharge in Connecticut Superior
Court remains pending.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
1. From the hearing transcript and Probation and Pretrial
Service’s conference request, the district court’s decision to order Mr.
Sastrom to report to Connecticut and Whiting constituted a modification
of his conditions of supervised release. Furthermore, the Sentencing
Guidelines make clear that geographic restrictions are one of many types
19
of supervised release conditions that district courts are authorized to
impose in appropriate circumstances. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c)(1) (“The
defendant shall report to the probation office in the federal judicial
district where he or she is authorized to reside….”).
2. Before modifying conditions of supervised release, the district
court is required under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) to consider numerous factors
enumerated in Section 3553(a), including most importantly in this case
“the need for the sentence imposed … to provide the defendant with
needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment in the most effective manner.” 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(2)(D) (emphasis added).
3. Despite copious evidence submitted for its consideration that
showed Mr. Sastrom’s present condition made psychiatric commitment
inappropriate (indeed, specifically contraindicated according to recent
providers supervising his care), the district court failed to undertake any
consideration of that evidence and the statutorily mandated factors to
which it was germane before modifying Mr. Sastrom’s conditions of
supervised release.
20
4. In doing so, the district court abused its discretion. The
district court’s order should be vacated and Mr. Sastrom should be
permitted to attend a new hearing where those mandatory factors are
appropriately considered when the district court reconsiders whether to
modify Mr. Sastrom’s conditions of supervised release with respect to
being ordered to report to Whiting in Connecticut.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court “review[s] conditions of supervised release for abuse of
discretion.” United States v. Del Valle-Cruz, 785 F.3d 48, 58 (1st Cir.
2015). This standard “is not a monolithic standard. Within its margins …
embedded questions of law engender de novo review and embedded
findings of fact engender clear error review.” United States v. Carrasco-
De-Jesús, 589 F.3d 22, 27 (1st. Cir. 2009).
“The court exceeds its discretion when it fails to consider a
significant factor in its decisional calculus, if it relies on an improper
factor in computing that calculus, or if it considers all of the appropriate
factors but makes a serious mistake in weighing such factors.” Del Valle-
21
Cruz, 785 F.3d at 58 (quoting Colon-Cabrera v. Esso Standard Oil Co.,
723 F.3d 82, 88 (1st Cir. 2013)).5
ARGUMENT
I. Overview of governing requirements for modification of

supervised release
A. District courts are required to consider factors

like access to appropriate medical care when
imposing modified terms of supervised release.
Terms of supervised release—whether imposed at the time of
original sentencing, or while the defendant remains under the court’s
5 So long as Mr. Sastrom remains under court supervision in an active

term of supervised release, he retains the right to challenge the district
court’s decisions related to his supervised release. See United States v.
D’Amario, 412 F.3d 253, 255 (1st Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“Congress has
expressly authorized the district court to retain jurisdiction over and
supervise the release of convicted defendants, including during the
pendency of their appeals.”). Mr. Sastrom’s appeal is a particularly live
controversy because relief from this Court would right a procedural error
and provide him with the opportunity to obtain substantially improved
conditions of supervised release. See United States v. Reyes-Barreto, 24
F.4th 82, 85–86 (1st Cir. 2022) (distinguishing prior precedent and
rejecting government’s argument of mootness where defendant was
“presently serving his term of supervised release” and “absolutely has a
stake in the outcome of this appeal” due to his ability to obtain further
relief from the district court were he to prevail); United States v.
Wiltshire, 772 F.3d 976, 979 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (“[A]s a direct
consequence of the district court’s adjudication, Wiltshire will be subject
to approximately two more years of supervised release …. limit[ing] her
freedom in a way that is a direct adverse legal consequence and is
sufficient to maintain a live case.”).
22
jurisdiction—can only be imposed, based on the court’s consideration of
certain statutorily mandated factors set out in Section 3583. With respect
to modification of terms of supervised release, the district court can
modify such conditions “at any time prior to the expiration of the term of
supervised release, pursuant to the … Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure relating to the modification of probation and the provisions
applicable to the initial setting of the terms and conditions of post-release
supervision ….” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2).
Section 3583 specifies that modification can only occur after the
district court considers “the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) ....” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e). Those factors include:
• “[T]he nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(1);
• “[T]he need for the sentence imposed … to protect the public from
further crimes of the defendant,” id. § 3553(a)(2)(C); and
• “[T]he need for the sentence imposed … to provide the

defendant with needed educational or vocational training,
medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most
effective manner,” id. § 3553(a)(2)(D) (emphasis added).
Several of the other factors are only relevant to modifications
arising from violations of supervised release, which are not relevant to
23
Mr. Sastrom. Section 3583 also incorporates Rule 32.1 into the required
procedures and considerations for the sentencing court, which is not
relevant here.6
B. District courts need to modify conditions of

supervised release in an evidence-based way,
oriented towards reintegrating the defendant
into the community wherever possible.
It is important in this case to start from first principles. First, as
explained above, Section 3583 explicitly requires the consideration of
various factors in Section 3553(a) as a part of the decision by a district
court to impose or modify conditions of supervised release. In a context
where no violation of supervised release is at issue, those factors are
oriented towards considering the defendant’s individual circumstances
and characteristics to help the defendant reintegrate into society while
minding any real concerns for public safety. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
6The rule requires that “[b]efore modifying the conditions of probation or

supervised release, the court must hold a hearing, at which the person
has the right to counsel and an opportunity to make a statement and
present any information in mitigation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(1). Mr.
Sastrom did not object to and does not appeal from the order modifying
the terms of his supervised release in relation to Rule 32.1.
24
Second, upon consideration of those factors, whatever decision the
district court may reach, “[t]he statute also requires district courts to
ensure the condition ‘involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is
reasonably necessary’ given who the defendant is, the defendant’s offense
and criminal history, and the ends of supervised release.” United States
v. Medina, 779 F.3d 55, 61 (1st Cir. 2015) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2)).
Other Circuits have recognized that “the primary purpose of supervised
release is to facilitate the integration of offenders back into the
community rather than to punish them.” United States v. Murray, 692
F.3d 273, 280 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Albertson, 645 F.3d
191, 197 (3d Cir. 2011)).7
Third, this Court has made clear that conditions of supervised
release require “adequate evidentiary support in the record” before they
can be imposed. United States v. Roy, 438 F.3d 140, 144 (1st Cir. 2006);
7 See also, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000)
(“Congress intended supervised release to assist individuals in their
transition to community life. Supervised release fulfils rehabilitative
ends, distinct from those served by incarceration.”); United States v.
Brooks, 889 F.3d 95, 99 (2d Cir. 2018) (same); United States v. Perry, 397
F. App’x 521, 523 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (same); United States v.
Engelhorn, 122 F.3d 508, 511 (8th Cir. 1997) (same).
25
see also United States v. DaSilva, 844 F.3d 8, 11 (1st Cir. 2016) (“The
district court is required to set forth a ‘reasoned and case-specific
explanation’ for the conditions it imposes.” (quoting United States v.
Gillman, 478 F.3d 440, 446 (1st Cir. 2007)).
In other words, inconvenience or inertia are not sufficient. The
district court is expected to make its own evidence-based judgment about
the appropriate conditions of supervised release (including geographic
conditions) for each defendant.
II. The district court’s order requiring Mr. Sastrom be

transported to Connecticut was a modification of his terms
of supervised release.
Although the court’s oral announcement of the sentence controls to
the extent it differs from the judgment entered on the docket, neither
party (after a diligent and thorough search) has been able to obtain a copy
of the sentencing transcript. See United States v. Sepúlveda-Contreras,
466 F.3d 166, 169 (1st Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the judgments in the
Massachusetts and Connecticut Cases control in determining the District
Court’s sentence.
The judgments include terms of supervised release but no specific
requirements that Mr. Sastrom be sent to Connecticut (or anywhere in
26
particular) upon his release from federal custody. (App’x 16–27, 49–56).8
At the district court’s hearing, a Connecticut AAG acknowledged that,
although they had requested that Mr. Sastrom be sent to Connecticut,
“at present, his supervised release is supposed to be in the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts….” (App’x 74). The district court later mentioned during
the hearing that “I’m going to modify conditions to require him to report
to Connecticut as soon as feasible….” (App’x 79).
The decision to have Mr. Sastrom brought to Connecticut as a part
of his supervised release was a wholly new condition without any
mention in the record prior to the September 2022 hearing. The
Sentencing Guidelines’ description of multiple conditions of supervised
release necessarily imply that district courts have the authority to
impose geographic specifications on individuals in a term of supervised
release. See, e.g., U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c)(1) (“The defendant shall report to
the probation office in the federal judicial district where he or she is
authorized to reside….” (emphasis added)).
8Indeed, at the September 2022 hearing, the district court noted “I’m not
sure I could order them [BOP] to take him to Connecticut.” (App’x 73).
27
The decision to newly restrict his release to Connecticut was a
modification of the conditions of Mr. Sastrom’s supervised release. This
modification accordingly required the district court to follow the
procedural requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
III. The district court abused its discretion by modifying the

terms of supervised release without considering the
mandatory factors.
Because it imposed not only a geographic restriction, but also did
so with the recognition that imposing that geographic constriction would
result in collateral consequences (i.e., being committed at Whiting), the
decision to impose that consequence required consideration of the various
relevant factors mandated by Section 3583(e).
District courts are required to consider these factors as a part of
imposition of conditions of supervised release (original or modified). See
United States v. Orlando, 823 F.3d 1126, 1132 (7th Cir. 2016) (noting
district court’s error during deficient resentencing that it “did not
consider the § 3553 factors and … [did not] discuss[] the defendant’s post-
sentencing rehabilitation, which the Supreme Court held district courts
may do”); United States v. Murdock, 735 F.3d 106, 112–13 (2d Cir. 2013)
(noting that “modification of supervised-release conditions is permitted
28
only ‘after considering the factors set forth in section 3553’” and affirming
that factors were properly considered in imposing term of supervised
release in halfway-house); United States v. Smith, 445 F.3d 713, 718–19
(3d Cir. 2006) (affirming modification of employment restrictions during
supervised release based on district court’s “review[] [of] the guidelines,
address[ing] the required factors, and f[inding]” there was basis to
conclude the restriction was “necessary to protect the public”).
In cases where a district court did make modifications to the
conditions of supervised release without considering the appropriate
factors under Section 3553, that has been found by other Circuits to be a
basis to vacate the relevant order and remand for further proceedings.
See, e.g., United States v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043, 1044–45 (9th Cir. 2002)
(vacating order modifying supervised release because “court had broad
authority to approve modification of the conditions but only after”
considering the relevant factors and “[i]t did not do so here”); United
States v. Miller, 205 F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir. 2000) (reversing district
court’s refusal to modify conditions of supervised relief based on changed
circumstances relevant to “litany of factors” courts are “obligate[d]” to
consider).
29
The district court’s reasoning on the record during the status
conference shows that those factors were not appropriately considered.
Among other things, Mr. Sastrom’s attorney before the district court
pointed out that the PSRB’s decision to affirm the prior commitment
order “contradict[ed] the testimony of the BOP doctor; it even
contradict[ed] the testimony of the state of Connecticut doctor” and that
the decision was “completely unfounded in fact and logic.” As the record
before the district court reflected, Mr. Sastrom’s attorney pointed out
that “Mr. Sastrom’s doctor in the Bureau of Prisons … [which] has not
sought to have Mr. Sastrom put in a Federal Medical Center …. Said he
should transition from the prison and be returned to his family in
Florida.” (App’x 87). None of these points were meaningfully considered
by the district court during the hearing or in its order.
As laid out above, Mr. Sastrom also spoke on his own behalf to
provide additional context and perspective on the evolution of his
condition, treatment, and attitude during his federal incarceration.
Despite the argument, Mr. Sastrom’s statements, and the documentary
evidence, no analysis of the information provided to the district court
30
before the hearing or at the hearing was included in the district court’s
reasoning to show it had been adequately considered.
When the District Court formalized its decision in an order
requiring Mr. Sastrom be sent to Connecticut, that order included no
additional reasoning. Most importantly, the district court failed to
undertake any individualized and evidence-based consideration of
whether the new proposed modification of Mr. Sastrom’s conditions of
supervised release would “provide [him] with needed … medical care …
in the most effective manner” as required by the statute. 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(2)(D). As the record shows, the district court was presented with
significant persuasive evidence that, regardless of PSRB’s pending
detainer, returning Mr. Sastrom against his will to a maximum-security
psychiatric institution would—far from being the most effective manner
of care—negatively impact his care and well-being.
The failure to address the relevant Section 3553 factors, especially
3553(a)(2)(D), in deciding whether to compel Mr. Sastrom be sent to
Connecticut upon his release—and consider the mitigating information
salient to those factors presented to the district court in exhibits,
arguments, and briefing—was an abuse of discretion.
31
IV. This Court has authority to vacate the order and remand
for a further hearing re-considering the condition of
supervised release.
This Court should vacate the district court’s order, direct Mr.
Sastrom’s case be transferred back to the District of Massachusetts, and
remand for proceedings re-considering whether to impose modified
conditions of supervised release requiring Mr. Sastrom to go to
Connecticut considering the appropriate Section 3553 factors. See
Murray, 692 F.3d at 282 (vacating modification of supervised release
because current conditions were “deterring Murray from committing
additional crimes, providing him with needed mental health counseling,
and protecting the public” and because “the District Court effectively
made Murray's supervised release conditions more restrictive,” requiring
the court to “more clearly explain why these new release conditions are
no greater than necessary to satisfy the § 3553(a) sentencing factors”).
The district court, guided by consideration of the appropriate
factors, can consider Mr. Sastrom’s history, current state, and the
recommendations of medical professionals to decide whether
Connecticut—and by implication, Whiting—is the right place for him
32
during his period of federal supervised release, acknowledging the
consequences of him being there.
Contrary to the district court’s explanations during the hearing, the
district court need not reverse or vacate the PSRB’s decision. Indeed, that
decision (and the civil detainer arising from it) cannot compel a district
court to extradite an individual or order him or her to surrender
themselves. So long as the defendant remains subject to the district
court’s jurisdiction and oversight, it cannot relinquish his rights nor its
substantive and procedural responsibilities under federal criminal law.
See Jackson v. Coalter, 337 F.3d 74, 78–79 (1st Cir. 2003) (noting that
petition under supervised probation is still “in custody” and able to
pursue habeas relief).
Rather, Section 3583(e) makes clear that the district court must
make its own independent evidence-based judgment about whether
particular proposed conditions of supervised release are appropriate
under the circumstances presented in the record. In this case, the district
court was required to determine whether it was appropriate for Mr.
Sastrom as an individual to be committed based on his present
33
circumstances. The district court did not do that, and so abused its
discretion.
Although counsel respectfully submits as explained above that
sending Mr. Sastrom back to Connecticut would not be the right choice,
the district court may still decide to send him back to Connecticut to be
returned to Whiting. But it can only do so after appropriate consideration
of the relevant factors enumerated by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) on the record.
The district court’s prior decision to send Mr. Sastrom to Connecticut
without appropriate consideration of those factors when they were
squarely presented in objection to the proposed modification was an
abuse of discretion that must be corrected.
34
CONCLUSION
This Court should vacate the order modifying Mr. Sastrom’s terms
of supervised release, and remand the case for further proceedings in the
district court, including a hearing concerning the terms of Mr. Sastrom’s
supervised release and an order that Mr. Sastrom attend that hearing in
person in the District of Massachusetts.
DATED: May 2, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Max Rodriguez
Max Rodriguez
Max Rodriguez
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
New York, New York 10006
(212) 337-5361
Max@PollockCohen.com
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
Roy Sastrom
35
ADDENDUM
36
Case: 22-1750 Case
Document: 00118004949 Document
1:09-cr-10168-PBS Page: 4214 Date
Filed Filed: 05/02/2023
09/22/22 Entry ID: 6565387
Page 1 of 1
22
1
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
2
3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
4 Plaintiff )
)
5 -VS- ) Criminal No. 09-10168-PBS
) Pages 1 - 35
6 ROY SASTROM, )
)
7 Defendant )
8
STATUS CONFERENCE BY VIDEO
9
10 BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATTI B. SARIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12 A P P E A R A N C E S:
13 LEAH B. FOLEY, ESQ. and EVE PIEMONTE, ESQ.,

Assistant United States Attorneys, Office of the United States
14 Attorney, 1 Courthouse Way, Room 9200, Boston, Massachusetts,
02210, for the Plaintiff.
15
JANE F. PEACHY, ESQ., Federal Public Defender Office,
16 51 Sleeper Street, 5th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts, 02210,
for the Defendant.
17
ALSO PRESENT: Christopher Foster and Justin Prophet,
18 United States Probation Office.
Elizabeth Bannon, Esq.
19 Vanessa Cardella, Esq.
Alina Bricklin-Goldstein, Esq.
20
United States District Court
21 1 Courthouse Way
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
22 September 16, 2022, 11:10 a.m.
23 LEE A. MARZILLI
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
24 United States District Court
1 Courthouse Way, Room 7200
25 Boston, MA 02210
leemarz@aol.com
2
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 THE CLERK: The Court calls Criminal Action 09 --
3 THE COURT: All right, somebody's -- I just couldn't
4 hear that, so mute yourself if you're not talking, please.
5 Thank you.
6 THE CLERK: Yes, thank you. The Court calls Criminal
7 Action 09-10168, United States v. Roy Sastrom. Could counsel
8 and Probation please identify themselves.
9 MS. FOLEY: Good morning, your Honor. Leah Foley for
10:10 10 the United States.
11 MS. PIEMONTE: Good morning. Eve Piemonte for the
12 United States.
13 MS. PEACHY: Good morning, your Honor. Jane Peachy.
14 I'm representing Roy Sastrom.
15 THE COURT: Can you hear us, Mr. Sastrom?
16 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I can, ma'am.
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 MR. PROPHET: Good morning, your Honor. Justin
19 Prophet on behalf of Probation. I also have my supervisor,
10:10 20 Christopher Foster, on this call as well.
21 THE COURT: Okay. Is there anyone here from the
22 Bureau of Prisons?
23 THE GUARD: I am.
24 THE COURT: Wait, wait. Who? Where? All right,
25 you're there from the Bureau of Prisons. Is there anyone,

3
1 though -- are you officially representing the Bureau of
2 Prisons?
3 THE GUARD: No, I'm not.
4 THE COURT: You're just helping out with Mr. Sastrom;
5 is that right?
6 THE GUARD: I'm just facilitating the meeting, yes.
7 THE COURT: All right, is there anyone here who's
8 officially from the Bureau of Prisons to represent its position
9 on this case?
10:11 10 THE GUARD: No. I don't believe so.
11 THE COURT: Okay, that's a gap. So let me ask, I see
12 Justin Prophet is here, and Chris Foster from Federal Probation
13 is here, but I also see another initial. Is that from
14 Connecticut? Is there someone here from the Connecticut state
15 entity? You're muted.
16 THE CLERK: Judge, there should be, so they should
17 unmute.
18 MS. BANNON: Good morning, your Honor. Elizabeth
19 Bannon, Assistant Attorney General from Connecticut.
10:12 20 THE COURT: Thank you. And who are these other
21 people, Ms. Bricklin-Goldstein and Ms. Cardella?
22 MS. CARDELLA: Yeah, I'm Vanessa Cardella. I'm the
23 Executive Director of the Psychiatric Security Review Board.
24 THE COURT: Okay. And who's Ms. Bricklin-Goldstein?
25 MS. BANNON: Your Honor, Ms. Bricklin-Goldstein is my

4
1 colleague at the Attorney General's office. I think she's
2 having some issues with her microphone.
3 THE COURT: I've been there. I get that. I've had
4 that happen too. I think everyone at this point has.
5 I wanted to start off by thanking Mr. Prophet and the
6 U.S. Probation Office because he's the one who noticed that we
7 were coming up on a very important date, which was release of
8 Mr. Sastrom, and basically gave me that memo saying "Set this
9 up." So I appreciate all he did to bring this to my attention
10:13 10 and just organizing this.
11 And I want to thank Ms. Peachy for jumping in in short
12 order; Ms. Foley. I mean, I think we all just found out about
13 this situation, oh, I don't know, a week or two ago, so --
14 But let me just get a final. When is the actual
15 release date? Do we know? When does he actually walk out of
16 the Federal Bureau of Prisons?
17 MR. PROPHET: Your Honor, Probation is tracking
18 September 27, and that's based on the communication from Case
19 Manager Felix, who's with Mr. Sastrom right now.
10:13 20 THE COURT: All right, so date of release is
21 November 27, okay.
22 MS. FOLEY: I believe it's September 27.
23 THE COURT: I'm sorry. What did I say?
24 MS. FOLEY: November.
25 THE COURT: I meant September 27, that's right. So

5
1 the question is, what happens on the day of release? What is
2 everyone's understanding as to how he gets from -- I believe
3 it's Arizona to either Massachusetts or Connecticut? What
4 happens?
5 MR. PROPHET: Your Honor, I'll come in. So typically
6 what happens in a case where someone is releasing to supervised
7 release in our district and our jurisdiction, your Honor, is
8 the Bureau of Prisons would facilitate his transportation,
9 whether it's by rail, train, bus, whatever it is. There's an
10:14 10 added --
11 THE COURT: I don't know what "facilitate" means.
12 Does it just mean pay for, or does someone escort him?
13 MR. PROPHET: Typically they arrange for the
14 transportation.
15 THE COURT: And "arrange" means pay for?
16 MR. PROPHET: Mr. Felix would be best to answer that
17 question. I don't know who pays for the transportation.
18 THE COURT: Mr. Felix, are you on? Are you his case
19 manager?
10:14 20 MR. FELIX: I am.
21 THE COURT: Where are you? You're not showing up.
22 Oh, there you are. I would love to see you. So you're the
23 case manager, Mr. Felix?
24 MR. FELIX: Yes.
25 THE COURT: Thank you. What do you understand will

6
1 happen on September 27?
2 MR. FELIX: I'm not really at liberty to speak for the
3 federal government. I can answer basic questions.
4 THE COURT: Well, someone has got to answer this
5 because we can't just release him to sort of in Arizona and say
6 "Get home." So what happens?
7 MR. FELIX: Typically, the way our releases go, if
8 they are released just to supervision, they are provided a bus
9 ticket or an airplane ticket.
10:15 10 THE COURT: All right, and what will it be here? Will
11 it be an airplane ticket?
12 MR. FELIX: We don't know how he's going to release.
13 THE COURT: Well, can I order it, that it will be an
14 airplane ticket because there's a safety issue here?
15 MR. FELIX: I'm not sure. I can't answer those
16 questions.
17 THE COURT: Well, who can?
18 MR. FELIX: Attorney Clay Cook would be the point of
19 contact for that.
10:15 20 THE COURT: Attorney who?
21 MR. FELIX: Clay Cook.
22 THE COURT: Do you have a phone number?
23 MR. FELIX: Not on hand. I can get you one.
24 THE COURT: All right.
25 Mr. Prophet, have you talked to Mr. Clay Cook to find

7
1 out how he's getting home? I don't want him sitting on a bus
2 from Arizona.
3 MR. PROPHET: Your Honor, I have not spoken with
4 Mr. Clay Cook. I typically wouldn't communicate with an
5 attorney for the Bureau of Prisons regarding this matter. As
6 you stated previously, this came to our attention not long ago,
7 and we were able to put all these parties together. No,
8 Probation, shorthand, doesn't communicate with the attorneys
9 regarding the exact modality; but what I can tell you is, I'm
10:16 10 knowledgeable that the Connecticut representatives here have
11 attempted communication with Clay Cook. I believe the U.S.
12 Attorney's Office has also attempted communication.
13 THE COURT: Well, why don't I hear from anybody else
14 who has any inkling. Well, let me start with Connecticut. Can
15 you go pick him up?
16 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: No, your Honor, we can't.
17 And I apologize. For some reason, the sound is not working on
18 my computer. I've joined my colleague, Attorney Bannon, in her
19 office.
10:17 20 THE COURT: Okay, you can't pick him up, so what
21 should I do? I mean, at the end of the day, I could maybe
22 order it be the airplane versus a bus, but I'm not sure I could
23 order them to take him to Connecticut. So what's your
24 proposal?
25 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: The Connecticut Psychiatric

8
1 Securities Review Board has sent a request to the regional
2 director of the Western Region at BOP asking for escorted
3 transportation for Mr. Sastrom upon his release, and in that
4 letter, they articulated that at present, his supervised
5 release is supposed to be in the jurisdiction of Massachusetts;
6 that efforts are being made to identify a process by which he's
7 either transferred or conditions are modified such that he
8 would be in Connecticut upon his release from Arizona. And so
9 we would ask for the escort to be to wherever it is that he's
10:18 10 going to be going to directly from Arizona, whether it be
11 Massachusetts or Connecticut, although obviously we prefer that
12 it be Connecticut --
13 THE COURT: Well, if it's Boston, I don't know why
14 Connecticut can't take care of it if it's from Boston.
15 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: He's not returning to
16 Connecticut, your Honor, as a prisoner, so there is no entity
17 that would have the authority to pick him up out of state. DOC
18 would only be picking him up --
19 THE COURT: I know, but I can't pay for it either,
10:18 20 okay? So I can bring him back to Boston; i.e., not me
21 personally, although sometimes it's tempting just to shortcut
22 this whole process. But let me just say this: I can't order
23 that it be transferred to Connecticut, so what are you
24 proposing? Let's say we get him to Boston, we have him report
25 in to Boston to Mr. Prophet, can you send a car up for him?

9
1 It's just Connecticut. We're, like, neighbors.
2 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, yes, we are
3 neighbors, but the police here that -- so the Department of
4 Health and Addiction Services has its own police force. They
5 usually do not have authority outside of the state of
6 Connecticut.
7 THE COURT: Hand him over in Sturbridge, is that what
8 happens? I mean, this is -- you're creating a catch-22 here.
9 I mean, as I understand it, from his record, there is an escape
10:19 10 risk as well as a safety risk. And I understand he's
11 challenging everything. The Connecticut courts have been
12 brought into play. I'm imagining I'll hear from Ms. Peachy
13 about the challenges, maybe, that are coming, but at this point
14 I'm just literally not sure what to do.
15 Ms. Foley, have you been in touch with the Bureau of
16 Prisons, Mr. Clay Cook, or anyone else?
17 MS. FOLEY: Ms. Piemonte has, yes, your Honor.
18 I'll let you speak to that.
19 THE COURT: All right.
10:19 20 MS. PIEMONTE: Your Honor, I attempted contact with
21 Clay Cook. I can tell you that --
22 THE COURT: Is Clay Cook one word, or is it --
23 MS. PIEMONTE: First name Clay, C-l-a-y, last name
24 Cook, C-o-o-k. He's a supervisory attorney with the Bureau of
25 Prisons. We also conferred with Connecticut yesterday prior to

10
1 this hearing, and I am informed that the letter that they
2 referenced was sent to the Bureau of Prisons on Monday.
3 Mr. Cook, my understanding, is out from the 15th to the 22nd of
4 this month. Your Honor, my understanding -- and I asked about
5 this, some of the same questions that the Court is asking -- my
6 understanding is that because there is this detainer from
7 Connecticut, what the Bureau of Prisons does when there's a
8 detainer is, they will release him on his release date. They
9 provide/purchase, whether it's bus or airfare; will escort him
10:21 10 to the transportation hub, whether it's an airport or a bus
11 station; and then from that point on, I think they're ordered
12 to report to Probation within 72 hours. I believe that's the
13 timeline. And that's how the Bureau of Prisons generally
14 handles it because it's a Connecticut detainer on which he's
15 being released in that situation. I do have Mr. Cook's number.
16 The Court asked for that. I am happy to provide it to you.
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18 MS. PIEMONTE: His number is 623-465-5120.
19 THE COURT: Is there someone else while he's on
10:21 20 vacation in situations of emergency if he --
21 MS. PIEMONTE: I didn't make it that far. We've been
22 working on this. I have tried to find out, but I don't have an
23 answer to that. And there may be someone covering, but I have
24 no idea how looped in they are to this entire case.
25 THE COURT: Ms. Peachy, do you have any inkling? I

11
1 mean, you deal with so many of these people being released to
2 supervised release. Do you have a solution for us?
3 MS. PEACHY: My solution is to allow Mr. Sastrom to
4 report to Probation in Boston. Because he doesn't really have
5 any ties to Boston, to add a halfway house condition, a
6 condition that he reside in an RRC, and that you stay any
7 decision on the modification while the issue of whether or not
8 he needs to be confined in a maximum security mental institution
9 continues to be litigated in the state of Connecticut.
10:22 10 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: If I may, your Honor, the
11 issue of whether Mr. Sastrom is required to be confined in
12 maximum security in Connecticut has already been litigated. He
13 was committed to the Psychiatric Security Review Board back in
14 1994; and as part of the statutory mandatory reviews, the most
15 recent one having occurred in June and July of this year, a
16 memorandum of decision and order was issued -- I believe it's
17 August 13 or August 16, 2022 -- indicates just that, that he is
18 to be confined under conditions of maximum security, and his
19 commitment does not currently terminate until 2034 unless he is
10:23 20 discharged prior to that date.
21 THE COURT: So this is what makes some sense: I think
22 I should modify the conditions of supervised release to say
23 that when he arrives in Boston, whichever way he arrives in
24 Boston, that he stay in a halfway house and report to
25 Mr. Prophet within 72 hours of arrival, and that he report to

12
1 Connecticut. I'm not sure how he's going to get from the
2 halfway house to Connecticut. That's what I don't know. He
3 has no money and he has no ties here. So if Connecticut
4 doesn't pick him up, Mr. Prophet, do you have a good idea as to
5 how he reports to Connecticut? He can't walk. You have Second
6 Chance Act money, right?
7 MR. PROPHET: I would have to go through the process
8 to get that approved through management.
9 THE COURT: You may have to do that. I think what we
10:24 10 need to do is -- how would one get there from Boston to
11 Connecticut?
12 MR. PROPHET: So just to kind of -- because a few
13 different points were raised, your Honor. First, to the point
14 of the residential reentry center, it's a great idea. However,
15 most of those referrals and placement are taking two weeks or
16 more to secure placement. So likely, if your Honor decides to
17 order, I would need that order, and I would need to make the
18 referral, and most of these placements are not being made
19 within two weeks. It's two weeks or greater.
10:24 20 THE COURT: Well, what do you want me to do? There's
21 nothing -- I don't know what else to do. I mean, he has no
22 place to stay. I'm going to have him stay at the corner of
23 Mass. and Cass or something? I mean, I don't know what to do
24 with him. I mean, if you can't find him someplace, maybe come
25 up with money for a YMCA or something. So I think you need to

13
1 petition for Second Chance Act money. There is a pot of money
2 for just such occasions. And I'm going to modify conditions to
3 require him to report to Connecticut as soon as feasible, and
4 hopefully we can use Second Chance Act money to get him to --
5 where is your institution? Where? Can I put him on a bus to
6 Hartford or New Haven and then have you pick him up?
7 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: Yes, your Honor.
8 MR. PROPHET: Your Honor, that's something that's been
9 discussed among many of the people on this call. If you order
10:25 10 the modification, the wording similar to what I indicated in my
11 memorandum that you approved, with that knowledge, parties on
12 this call could coordinate with Bureau of Prisons staff to have
13 that transportation, that plane ticket, go direct from Tucson
14 to Bradley International Airport, which is in Connecticut, and
15 that would alleviate the problems. I believe Connecticut
16 attorneys -- please answer -- but your police then, if
17 Mr. Sastrom is brought directly via air to Connecticut, we no
18 longer have to worry about where he's going to stay in
19 Massachusetts --
10:26 20 THE COURT: Well, that's terrific. Why wouldn't I
21 just do that? I didn't know that.
22 MR. Prophet: That's my recommendation, as long as the
23 Bureau of Prisons insures that his transportation is direct
24 airfare from Tucson to Bradley International Airport.
25 THE COURT: That's what seems to make the most sense

14
1 here, and then it will be totally on the shoulders of
2 Connecticut, pick him up at the airport, transport him. And
3 then the legal processes in Connecticut, to the extent that
4 there's a challenge, can take place.
5 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: If I may, your Honor, I
6 understand that your Honor's hands are completely tied and our
7 options are very limited, and I have explored various ideas,
8 both with the Bureau of Prisons, including Attorney Cook, and
9 certainly Mr. Prophet and Attorney Foley. The ideal, which
10:27 10 seems to be impossible at this point, is for him to have
11 escorted transportation from Arizona to Connecticut. And I
12 shouldn't say it's impossible because I do think that the
13 Director of the Bureau of Prisons does have the authority to
14 provide escorted transportation and make that decision, but I
15 understand that your Honor may not have that authority.
16 THE COURT: I don't know if I do. I mean, I like to
17 think of myself as having that authority because I inherited
18 him from Judge Harrington. I don't really know Mr. Sastrom.
19 I've just been reading the materials that have been submitted
10:27 20 in the last couple of days. I think, at the very least,
21 Ms. Foley or Ms. Piemonte, do you want to -- it should be the
22 government that sort of works with BOP. BOP is part of you.
23 MS. FOLEY: Your Honor, since this came onto our radar
24 about a week ago, we have been brainstorming and trying to
25 figure out logistics to make both possible. The government had

15
1 recommended or suggested that you habe him into the district,
2 so at least he would have a controlled, escorted, you know,
3 trip from Arizona to Massachusetts. That was my most creative
4 suggestion.
5 THE COURT: Well, I haven't received that yet, have I?
6 MS. FOLEY: When I was emailing with the parties last
7 week, that was my proposition, was that suggestion that the
8 Court order a habe to habe him into the district. And then,
9 because this investigation and prosecution was an FBI-related
10:29 10 case --
11 THE COURT: But I can't hold him any longer than the
12 27th. I don't know that I could have that happen exactly.
13 MS. FOLEY: So, yes, you know, in order for the BOP
14 to -- if you would habe him in for --
15 THE COURT: Well, why didn't you move for a habe? I
16 need something to happen soon, is what I need. But if he comes
17 into Boston, then they're saying they won't pick him up. Why
18 aren't I better off just flying him straight to Bradley
19 Airport?
10:29 20 MS. FOLEY: I think that is a solution. I was trying
21 to figure out, if he did arrive in Boston, whether we could ask
22 the FBI to drive him to the Connecticut border, since they were
23 the investigating agency on this case, but I haven't received a
24 word back from them.
25 THE COURT: All right, so right now what I'm going to

16
1 do is, I'm going to grant the probation officer's request for
2 a -- now, exactly what's the wording that you want, Mr. Prophet?
3 MR. PROPHET: So it's listed right in the memorandum,
4 your Honor. It says, "Upon your release from federal custody,
5 you will report directly to the Whiting Forensic Hospital in
6 Connecticut and self-surrender for your civil commitment."
7 So what I understand now from my partners over in
8 Connecticut, that the wording isn't correct on "civil
9 commitment," so I'm going to correct myself there and change it
10:30 10 to the wording I sent to Ms. Peachy and Ms. Leah Foley
11 yesterday. The wording I want for the modification -- and,
12 parties, please interject if I'm saying this incorrectly -- is,
13 quote, "Upon your release from Bureau of Prisons custody, you
14 must report directly to the Whiting Forensic Hospital in
15 Connecticut and abide by all program rules and requirements
16 until you are discharged from said program."
17 And with that modification, the Bureau of Prisons on,
18 the attorneys here can reach out to Mr. Cook and whoever they
19 need to to the Bureau of Prisons, and say that the travel that
10:31 20 we request and the Court requests is that he is put on
21 transportation, air transportation, directly from Tucson, and
22 if there are no direct flights, as minimal stopovers as
23 possible to Bradley International Airport. The Bureau of
24 Prisons will provide that itinerary with Probation and the U.S.
25 Attorney's Office, and we'll coordinate with --

17
1 THE COURT: And Ms. Peachy, and Ms. Peachy.
2 MR. PROPHET: Of course, your Honor. As Ms. Peachy
3 will tell you, I'm the one who thought of her and brought her
4 into this case. She's one of the best, and I will always
5 appreciate Ms. Peachy.
6 Now, with all these parties on and Mr. Sastrom on, if
7 you order this modification, if Mr. Sastrom fails to follow
8 through, your Honor can put him on notice and say we will
9 immediately --
10:31 10 THE COURT: Here's my concern about the way you've
11 just worded it. Let me just be clear. I'm fine with having
12 him report to the Whiting Center as the commitment requires,
13 but to comply with all program requirements? I mean, every
14 time that he gets a disciplinary report at Whiting, I'm going
15 to have a probation revocation? Uh-uh.
16 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: I agree, your Honor, and I
17 was going to comment on Mr. Prophet's suggested language. I
18 think it's accurate for the most part, but instead of complying
19 with the rules, is that he report to Whiting Forensic Hospital
10:32 20 in Middletown, Connecticut, in accordance with his commitment
21 to the Psychiatric Security Review Board.
22 THE COURT: Could you both work on the language and
23 send it to me, and I will provide that modification, and
24 obviously to Ms. Peachy too?
25 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: Certainly.

18
1 THE COURT: And then, as far as I'm concerned -- so,
2 all right, let's assume this happens. It's going to be the
3 recommendation of the Court -- maybe we can put that in
4 there -- that he be given airfare and that it be escorted
5 because of an escape risk and a safety risk.
6 But here's the issue: What happens to supervised
7 release? Should I just get rid of it? I mean, I guess not in
8 the sense of -- but I think it's going to be running while he's
9 there. In other words, I don't want him to be there for,
10:33 10 what's it, up to a huge amount of time, and then suddenly at
11 the end of it, he's on supervised release here? I'm not into
12 that. So I think we can --
13 On the other hand, if he's discharged and perhaps
14 Ms. Peachy or some other excellent Federal Defender or public
15 defender gets him out, I want to have supervised release. So
16 I'm trying to figure out -- I think what I'm going to say is, I
17 want to have it run concurrently with the commitment.
18 MS. PEACHY: I think under the statute, it has to,
19 your Honor. A term of supervised release only doesn't start
10:33 20 running if he's serving a sentence of imprisonment. It says
21 nothing about a civil commitment.
22 THE COURT: That's helpful. So I don't remember
23 how --
24 MS. FOLEY: Your Honor, can I suggest that the order
25 say that upon discharge from Whiting, he is to report to

19
1 Probation within 72 hours?
2 THE COURT: Great addition, because I don't know if --
3 MS. PEACHY: And, your Honor --
4 THE COURT: That's a great addition because I -- but
5 it should be running concurrently so I'm not here forty years
6 from now, my grandchildren as a judge, you know, looking at
7 this. I mean, it's just crazy, okay? It's just...
8 MS. PEACHY: Your Honor, I'm greatly outnumbered here,
9 but that is not going to deter me from speaking on behalf of
10:34 10 Mr. Sastrom. I think everyone thinks, because he and I are
11 opposing the modification, it means that he doesn't want mental
12 health treatment or that he's resistant to treatment, and
13 nothing could be further from the truth.
14 I'm asking your Honor to stay the modification. And I
15 should also say that under Rule 32.1, Mr. Sastrom has the right
16 to speak at this hearing, and he has prepared a few words for
17 your Honor and would like to exercise that right.
18 THE COURT: Thank you.
19 MS. PEACHY: I will also add that, as you know, I sent
10:34 20 you some exhibits for today's hearing at 1:00 o'clock in the
21 morning because I've been cramming as best as I can to get up
22 to speed on this case and research the issues in this case, and
23 I would like the opportunity to refine those arguments and
24 continue my research and perhaps submit something in writing to
25 your Honor by Wednesday. But the gist of my argument --

20
1 THE COURT: So that's Wednesday when?
2 MS. PEACHY: Wednesday is the 21st. I mean, I can try
3 to do it by Monday.
4 THE COURT: I don't want you to lose some more sleep.
5 I'm impressed you sent it. On the other hand, I will point
6 out, there were 92 pages, and I have not read them.
7 MS. PEACHY: I understand, and I didn't read the
8 exhibit that Ms. Foley sent over. I didn't have a chance to
9 get to that. So I haven't read everything that's before your
10:35 10 Honor either.
11 But the gist of our argument is, we're not asking the
12 Court to ignore the detainer, although really a detainer is
13 just a request from one agency to another. It's not, you know,
14 a binding order in any way. And I'm also not asking the Court
15 to ignore the order of the Psychiatric Review Board. We're
16 asking the Court to hold off for several -- and I think the
17 Court has the authority to do that, first of all, because the
18 Federal Court has jurisdiction over Mr. Sastrom. The Federal
19 Court retains jurisdiction over Mr. Sastrom at this point while
10:36 20 he's on supervised release. As you know from the habeas
21 context, he's still considered "in custody" during his term of
22 supervised release.
23 THE COURT: So do you agree with Ms. Foley I should
24 habe him over here?
25 MS. PEACHY: I think he's going to need transportation.

21
1 I disagree with everyone's characterization of Mr. Sastrom. I
2 think his provider at the Bureau of Prisons for the last over
3 two years would disagree with everyone's characterization of
4 Mr. Sastrom. I think he's quite stable and doing quite well
5 and has been compliant with his treatment. And the reason why
6 I'm asking the Court to stay the modification for now is
7 because, you know, there is still a -- while the Board made its
8 decision, there is a right to have a motion heard in State
9 Superior Court, and that motion remains pending. And if you
10:37 10 look at the transcripts of the hearing that I sent over and the
11 Board's decision requiring Mr. Sastrom to be confined in a
12 maximum security mental institution, it contradicts the
13 testimony of the BOP doctor; it even contradicts the testimony
14 of the state of Connecticut doctor. It is completely unfounded
15 in fact and logic. I think it has a good chance of success on
16 appeal.
17 For example, Mr. Sastrom's doctor in the Bureau of
18 Prisons -- and I should point out that the Bureau of Prisons
19 has not sought to have Mr. Sastrom put in a Federal Medical
10:37 20 Center. They don't think he requires that level of psychiatric
21 care. They, of course, did not seek a 4246 civil commitment
22 under the federal statute, but he has been treated in Tucson by
23 Dr. Licata, who said that he should transition from the prison
24 and be returned to his family in Florida. She said that
25 outpatient therapy would be more appropriate to address

22
1 Mr. Sastrom's mental health needs, and that inpatient care
2 would be detrimental to his mental health.
3 Even Dr. Kapoor, the doctor for the State of
4 Connecticut, basically said that the reason why she was
5 recommending any commitment was because there wasn't enough
6 information available about his release plan, what kind of
7 mental health treatment he could get in Florida. But, of
8 course, we know that he's going to be on three years of
9 supervised release. He has a very supportive sister who wants
10:38 10 to take him in, wants to help him. She wrote a letter to the
11 Court. She's here at today's hearing. And he'd have a federal
12 probation officer supervising him.
13 Even Dr. Kapoor said that Mr. Sastrom's strong
14 relationship with his psychologist in the Bureau of Prisons and
15 his medication are positive signs related to his recovery. She
16 says that he would not likely meet the criteria for civil
17 commitment. I can go on and on about --
18 THE COURT: Excuse me. You make powerful points, but
19 I can't reverse the Connecticut decision.
10:39 20 MS. PEACHY: But you can wait until he has a chance to
21 litigate the pending motion in the state Superior Court, your
22 Honor. This is a civil order. It's not a criminal warrant out
23 of a criminal case. It's a civil order that has not been fully
24 litigated.
25 THE COURT: Does Mr. Sastrom -- I am not likely to

23
1 have him not report to Connecticut. I think this should be
2 resolved, and I agree with you, on an expedited business. It
3 sounds like he has some good arguments in Connecticut. I'm
4 just not going to do it. I'm not going to decide his mental
5 health status through the auspices of a supervised release
6 proceeding.
7 But I am understanding that this will be contested. I
8 mean, you've been litigating it. But already the Federal
9 District Court in Connecticut declined to grant a habe. There
10:40 10 are courts that have been engaged, the State Courts and the
11 Federal Courts there. I'm not going to be a third forum.
12 So let me ask you this, Mr. Sastrom, did you want to
13 address the Court?
14 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. So in 2008, uhm, I
15 escaped from the hospital, and I went on a crime spree, and I
16 was held accountable for that. I took responsibility for that.
17 And I came into the Bureau of Prisons. I was arrested in
18 Connecticut, and Connecticut had primary jurisdiction. And
19 there was an active order of psychiatric confinement, and I
10:41 20 went to prison. And I'm going to tell you, I came into the
21 Bureau of Prisons in 2010, and I was in bad shape
22 psychiatrically; and between 2010 and 2015, I was hospitalized
23 seven times in an outside community hospital for harm that I
24 had done to myself. I was never placed in an FMC, federal
25 medical facility.
24
1 And I'm going to tell you, in 2018 something really
2 horrible happened to me in United States penitentiary Terre
3 Haute in Indiana, and basically that was the -- you know, that
4 is the catalyst for me to change my life. I mean, it was at
5 that point that I realized that -- that I was -- I was living a
6 reckless life, and I had no values, and I was alienated from my
7 family. And I made a commitment to myself that I would stop
8 using drugs, and I did. I was clean for years. And, you know,
9 and I'm not perfect, so there's been some relapses; and in
10:42 10 September of last year, there was a suicide attempt. And since
11 then, your Honor, you know, my focus is basically rebuilding a
12 life, you know. And I'm almost 60 years old. I've been locked
13 up my entire life. I was at Connecticut Valley Hospital for 14
14 years. And the only thing I really want to do is restart my
15 life, and if I have to do that from the state of Connecticut,
16 well, that's exactly what I'm going to do. But, you know, they
17 had primary jurisdiction, and they should have taken it, they
18 should have enforced their order, and they didn't. And
19 consequently I went to prison, and I was transferred on a writ
10:43 20 to Federal Court, which was a temporary writ. I was supposed
21 to be returned to the State of Connecticut, and instead I
22 stayed in the Bureau of Prisons for 12 years.
23 And I'm really emotional right now because it's, like,
24 everybody is looking at 14 years ago, and I'm not that person
25 14 years ago. I'm not a danger to myself anymore. I'm not a

25
1 danger to anybody. And if you look at my prison record, I
2 mean, you're looking at infractions that are very minor and
3 very few. I've never assaulted anybody in the Bureau of
4 Prisons or anywhere else. And I want to be reunited with my
5 family. You know, I just lost my mother last week. She just
6 passed away, and I can't even --
7 THE COURT: I'm sorry. Excuse me, excuse me. I'm
8 sorry about your mother. I didn't know that. That must be --
9 THE DEFENDANT: And I can't even begin to mourn the
10:43 10 death of my mother because I'm constantly caught up in this
11 battle where, you know, they had primary jurisdiction, your
12 Honor. And I know I'm an inmate, and I know that I'm not
13 trained in the law, but I know for a fact that if they can't
14 come and get me, then I find it hard to believe that you can
15 legally send me into Connecticut and they can pick me up
16 because, you know, they gave up the jurisdiction that they had.
17 They basically relinquished it. And they said, "We want him to
18 go to federal prison," and they said that in an email: "We
19 sincerely hope he's transferred to federal prison." And that
10:44 20 was Ellen Weber LaChance, and she was Executive Director of the
21 Board at that time. And that was after she was told by her own
22 counsel, the Connecticut Attorney General's office, that I
23 needed to be returned to Connecticut, that the fed sentence
24 would have to be lodged as a detainer. And they didn't do
25 that. They sent me to prison. And now I'm in a position where

26
1 I have values -- I value my freedom, I value my life, I value
2 my health, I value my family -- and they want to take me and
3 stick me in a mental institution where I was abused for 14
4 straight solid years. The trauma that was inflicted on me
5 there is unbelievable. And, you know, there's no reason for
6 it, your Honor. I'm not a danger to anybody. I have --
7 there's no chance of me committing a crime today. That's what
8 I don't understand. Everybody's looking back at 2008. I was a
9 mess in 2008, and I'm not today. So, you know --
10:45 10 THE COURT: So let me -- excuse me, sir. I understand
11 it, and you're actually quite well-spoken, and it does sound as
12 if you've made progress. The problem is, I don't have
13 jurisdiction to do anything about the Connecticut order, which
14 is recent and as we confirmed it. So at this point, that will
15 have to be resolved through the Connecticut courts.
16 As Ms. Peachy said, there's a pending appeal, is that
17 right? And it's possible that you're going to go -- maybe ask
18 the Connecticut people -- that he'll go back in and be
19 recognized as a lower risk based on his progress in the federal
10:46 20 prison system. But that's not my jurisdiction. I cannot do
21 anything about that. And there is a pending order, and until
22 that order is lifted or mitigated, I can't do anything.
23 So at this point, Mr. Prophet, you'll propose language
24 to everybody, hopefully submit it as soon as possible. If
25 Ms. Peachy wants to submit something, I'll hold off on doing

27
1 anything till Wednesday? Does that seem reasonable to you,
2 Ms. Peachy?
3 MS. PEACHY: Yes, your Honor. And just for the
4 record, I do object, and I don't think it's true that you can't
5 do anything.
6 THE COURT: I cannot reverse the Connecticut order.
7 MS. PEACHY: I understand that, but I don't think you
8 have to modify the order in the way that you're doing.
9 THE COURT: Well, I haven't done anything yet, so
10:47 10 you'll have to respond. I haven't done anything yet. What I'm
11 most likely to do is to have him report to the Connecticut
12 institution, and if you can get a stay from the Connecticut
13 courts, I'm happy to listen to that.
14 MS. FOLEY: And, your Honor, I have read all thousand
15 pages of documents that have been submitted in this, and
16 including the most recent order from the Review Board, which
17 considered the psychologist who had been treating Mr. Sastrom
18 over the last year or two in prison, her recommendation. But
19 it is true, and she said in sworn testimony, that she had not
10:47 20 performed a risk assessment for Mr. Sastrom.
21 I do also know that the doctor from the state of
22 Connecticut who testified at the same hearing acknowledged that
23 a community-based setting is possible and probably better for
24 someone who has Mr. Sastrom's history and comorbidities.
25 However, the biggest concern for everyone was that there was no
28
1 release plan, and they all acknowledge that you cannot just put
2 someone who has been off the streets for two decades back into
3 a situation and think it's all going to come together
4 immediately. No one can do that. And the commitment order
5 stressed that the Whiting return was for that all of their
6 teams across the spectrum of, like, their specialties were
7 going to review how Mr. Sastrom was doing and try to put
8 together a reentry plan for him that would insure his safety
9 and the safety of the community. And so while understanding
10:48 10 that nobody wants him to be confined until 2032, the
11 government's position, along with Probation and the State of
12 Connecticut, is the best thing for him and the safety of the
13 community is to return him so that they can consider how his
14 release into the community would be. And the terms of
15 supervised release might, I believe, would assist him in his
16 appeal to be released from the confinement and into the
17 community because the biggest concern was, there was no plan,
18 and now his lawyers can go back to the Review Board or to the
19 judge who's reviewing this and say, "There is a plan. He will
10:49 20 be on supervised release. These are the mental health and
21 substance abuse and all other treatments that are going to be
22 offered to him." And that --
23 THE COURT: That's a good point because we will have
24 halfway houses if released to Massachusetts, and that would be
25 the similar situation in Florida. All right, well --

29
1 MS. PEACHY: No, can I just say something, your Honor?
2 What's not -- there was a system failure here, though, with
3 regards to release plan. Bureau of Prisons would not do the
4 normal release planning for Mr. Sastrom that they normally
5 would do because of the detainer, and Connecticut would not
6 release the detainer or consider anything other than commitment
7 because there was no release plan. So Mr. Sastrom is caught in
8 this catch-22, despite the fact that he has a very supportive
9 sister who's willing to take him in and work with him, and he's
10:50 10 got supervised release with conditions and everything like
11 that.
12 The other thing I would say is that I have no faith,
13 based on my conversations with Mr. Sastrom's attorney in
14 Connecticut, that he's going to be transitioned to the
15 community anytime soon from the state of Connecticut. They
16 ordered him to the Whiting Hospital, this maximum-security
17 institution, despite the recommendations of both doctors, who
18 testified that he didn't require that level of care.
19 And I would say, I looked into these institutions
10:51 20 after Mr. Sastrom told me about the abuse he suffered there,
21 and there's story after story, lawsuit after lawsuit about
22 patient abuse, staffing shortages, other just horror stories
23 coming out of this place. And so for Mr. Sastrom, who's made
24 tremendous progress, especially in the last two years with
25 regard to his mental health -- and I'll say, talking to him --

30
1 I've represented other people in civil commitment cases -- he
2 is not that person. I don't know -- I don't know what they're
3 doing over there, but it's not right.
4 THE COURT: Well, would Connecticut like to respond?
5 Is there going to be an effort to create a release plan?
6 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, I wanted to speak
7 to the jurisdictional issues that have been raised by various
8 counsel. Mr. Sastrom, through his attorney in Connecticut,
9 filed sometime in either 2021 or 2022 two applications: One is
10:52 10 an application for discharge from the commitment, so to
11 terminate the commitment if approved by the Court, and
12 concurrently he had filed an application for conditional
13 release. And his plan under that application for conditional
14 release was to leave Arizona on his release from imprisonment
15 and go to his sister's house in Florida. The hearing started
16 in June; it completed in July of 2022. His counsel had
17 withdrawn the application for conditional release. The
18 mechanism by which he could possibly have been permitted to go
19 to Florida while still committed to the Psychiatric Security
10:52 20 Review Board had been withdrawn by his attorney. So the only
21 thing that remained pending for the Board to review and make
22 recommendations upon was the application for the discharge from
23 the commitment. And the way that works is, once the Board
24 conducts the hearing, they issue a report to the court with
25 their recommendation, and that was filed with the court last
31
1 month, and it's ultimately up to the Superior Court in
2 Connecticut --
3 THE COURT: And that's a pending proceeding in the
4 Superior Court?
5 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: Yes, and that matter has
6 really remained open since Mr. Sastrom's commitment in 1994.
7 The very court that found him not guilty by reason of insanity
8 at the time or mental disease or defect --
9 THE COURT: Does that lawyer still represent him, the
10:53 10 one in Connecticut?
11 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: Yes, there is an attorney who
12 still represents him, and the state's attorney represents the
13 interest of the state in that hearing. It's really a criminal
14 court with a criminal docket number but tied to his Psychiatric
15 Security Review Board commitment.
16 THE COURT: Have you been in touch with this person?
17 Is it a lawyer? Have you had a chance?
18 MS. PEACHY: I've had conversations with him, your
19 Honor. We've been trying to work together. You mean the
10:53 20 lawyer for Mr. Sastrom?
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 MS. PEACHY: Yes.
23 THE COURT: Okay. All right, I will get proposed
24 language after you've had a chance to confer, Mr. Prophet, with
25 the others. The main thing I don't want is to every time, if

32
1 he violates a release plan or if he violates within the
2 institution, I don't want to be involved. I think just his --
3 in the meantime, perhaps the attorney in Connecticut can get an
4 emergency relief from the Connecticut court. And I don't have
5 the authority to reverse the order of the Connecticut
6 institutions. That's firmly in the hands of the Connecticut
7 State Courts right now.
8 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, the emergency
9 relief that you referred to, I assume you mean for Connecticut
10:54 10 to have the authority to go to Massachusetts to pick him up in
11 the event that you order him --
12 THE COURT: No. I meant emergency relief that he be
13 released to -- that he not be committed. No, they're
14 challenging the order in State Court, as I understand it,
15 right?
16 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: So the Board's recommendation
17 got filed with the court. It's up to the court to make a
18 decision on that, and Mr. Sastrom is entitled to counsel and a
19 trial on that recommendation. So it ultimately would be up to
10:55 20 the Superior Court in Connecticut whether to discharge
21 Mr. Sastrom from commitment.
22 THE COURT: It's not going to be my decision.
23 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: Right. And if he does remain
24 committed, if the Court decides that the recommendation of the
25 PSRB is appropriate and that Mr. Sastrom's application for

33
1 discharge is denied, there would continue to be periodic
2 reviews. Mr. Sastrom would have an opportunity through counsel
3 to file further motions --
4 THE COURT: I know, I know, but I've dealt with that
5 in Massachusetts. I mean, it -- I've dealt with that in
6 Massachusetts. It sounds like he may not be the same man who
7 was committed a while ago. He said that. I mean, I've watched
8 him. I mean, I see some of that. You know, he's well-spoken.
9 I agree with Ms. Peachy. I've seen many people like this, and
10:55 10 he's better spoken than many, but nonetheless I don't have
11 jurisdiction to reverse that order.
12 Mr. Prophet, come up with a solution as far as
13 language. And it will be the recommendation of the Court,
14 maybe we should put in it, that he be transported by air, not
15 by bus, and that he be transported to Hartford.
16 MR. PROPHET: And perhaps, your Honor, if I may,
17 Ms. Foley and the government, they have a little more sway with
18 the BOP in making that travel recommendation, if those parties
19 could handle that.
10:56 20 And for transparency purposes, we have everyone here.
21 We have your Honor. I've taken into account Ms. Foley's
22 recommendation and Connecticut's recommendation, and I figured
23 now I can say it, and if anyone has anything to change --
24 THE COURT: No. I don't want to do that. I actually
25 am in the middle of trial, and I actually have -- so if

34
1 everybody might have a debate about it. You submit it to me,
2 and we'll put it on the docket, and I will likely rule next
3 Thursday or Friday. What's that, the --
4 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: Thursday is the 22nd. Friday
5 is the 23rd, your Honor. So if part of the order is a
6 recommendation that he be transported by air and it's
7 recommended that he's escorted in that, not ordered but
8 recommended, I think if the BOP would sort of buy that, they
9 would need some time to figure that out. So I would be
10:57 10 concerned if the order didn't issue until late last week
11 because the 27th is a Tuesday of the following week.
12 THE COURT: I don't know what you want me to do. I
13 mean, I'm doing the best I can here. No one informed me
14 beforehand of this. Mr. Prophet is the one who brought it to
15 my attention, like, several days ago, and he was all over it,
16 and he said there's a big urgency here. We were trying to
17 think what it took to organize this. I'm doing the best I can.
18 And you all can talk to the Bureau of Prisons about this on
19 telephone. It's not like -- I am likely to modify the order to
10:57 20 direct -- I just don't know the precise language, and I wanted
21 to make sure I wasn't doing something that was inappropriate.
22 So if Mr. Prophet wants to come up with that language earlier,
23 so be it, but I'm giving him till Wednesday to confer with
24 everyone, and I'm also giving Ms. Peachy till Wednesday to
25 actually file something. But I'm telling you where I'm

35
1 leaning, I can't be clearer about it, and that's what we're
2 going to do.
3 MR. PROPHET: Your Honor, you'll have the answer and
4 the wording for the modification as soon as we're off the call
5 and Ms. Goldstein responds to my email. I'll include
6 Ms. Peachy, all parties will be informed, but you'll get it
7 within the hour.
8 THE COURT: That's fine. I'm in the middle of trial.
9 That's fine. I'm doing the best I can here. And I think if
10:58 10 Ms. Peachy, I don't know exactly what she'll be filing on
11 Wednesday. I'm not requiring her to file anything. Even if I
12 modify it earlier than that to get this process going, I might,
13 if she's -- she may have other good ideas, so make sure she's
14 looped in here. But the one thing I'm not going to do is hold
15 off until the Connecticut courts resolve this; I'm not doing it
16 if he's not going to be in a halfway house, which we couldn't
17 even get the two weeks anyway. It's not happening until --
18 okay, thank you.
19 MS. BRICKLIN-GOLDSTEIN: Thank you, your Honor.
10:59 20 (Adjourned, 10:59 a.m.)
21
22
23
24
25
36
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )
4 DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ss.
CITY OF BOSTON )
5
7 I, Lee A. Marzilli, Official Federal Court Reporter,
8 do hereby certify that the foregoing transcript, Pages 1
9 through 35 inclusive, was recorded by me stenographically at
10 the time and place aforesaid in Criminal No. 09-10168-PBS,
11 United States of America v. Roy Sastrom, and thereafter by me
12 reduced to typewriting and is a true and accurate record of the
13 proceedings.
14 Dated this 6th day of December, 2022.
15
16
17
18
19
/s/ Lee A. Marzilli
20 __________________________________
LEE A. MARZILLI, CRR
21 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B)(ii), as modified by Local Rule 32(a)(7), because this brief contains 6,644
words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f). This brief
complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5) and the type
style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared
in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Office Word in 14-point Times
New Roman style.
Dated: May 2, 2023 By: /s/ Max Rodriguez

Max Rodriguez
POLLOCK COHEN LLP
New York, New York 10006
(212) 337-5361
Max@PollockCohen.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Max E. Rodriguez, hereby certify that this document filed through the
ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participant(s), including all
counsel of record, specifically, Leah Foley, Donald Lockhart, and Jennifer Zacks,
as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on May 2, 2023.
/s/ Max E. Rodriguez

Max E. Rodriguez

2023.05.02 - Appellant Opening Brief (US v. Sastrom)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2023.05.02 - Appellant Opening Brief (US v. Sastrom)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023.05.02 - Appellant Opening Brief (US v. Sastrom)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 22-1750 Document: 00118004949 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2023 Entry ID: 6565387

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

On Appeal from the U.S. District Court

BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT ROY SASTROM

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................. 5

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................. 6

I. Mr. Sastrom’s Original Commitment............................................ 6

II. Federal Criminal History .............................................................. 6

III. Incarceration and Treatment in Custody...................................... 8

IV. Impending Release and Return to Whiting ................................ 10

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................19

STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................21

I. Overview of governing requirements for modification of

II. The district court’s order requiring Mr. Sastrom be

III. The district court abused its discretion by modifying the

United States v. Albertson,

United States v. Brooks,

United States v. Carrasco-De-Jesús,

United States v. D’Amario,

United States v. DaSilva,

United States v. Del Valle-Cruz,

United States v. Engelhorn,

United States v. Gillman,

United States v. Gross,

United States v. Johnson,

United States v. Medina,

United States v. Miller,

United States v. Murdock,

United States v. Murray,

United States v. Orlando,

United States v. Perry,

United States v. Reyes-Barreto,

United States v. Roy,

United States v. Sepúlveda-Contreras,

United States v. Smith,

United States v. Wiltshire,

Statutes & Rules

18 U.S.C. § 3553 .............................................................................. passim

18 U.S.C. § 3583 .............................................................................. passim

28 U.S.C. § 1291 ....................................................................................... 5

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 ...............................................................................24

Local Rule 11 ........................................................................................... 6

U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3 ............................................................................... 20, 27

This appeal arises from the modification of Roy Sastrom’s

conditions of supervised release, through which he was sent, over his

objection, to the state of Connecticut, where he was detained by state

authorities to be committed to a maximum-security unit at the Whiting

Forensic Hospital in Middletown, Connecticut (“Whiting”) following his

September 27, 2022 release from the United States Penitentiary in

continuation of his detention through involuntary commitment would be

detrimental to Mr. Sastrom’s mental health and potentially reverse much

management of his mental illness while in federal custody.

Indeed, over the past 13 years, Mr. Sastrom received quality

psychiatric care while in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).

He made significant strides in his lifelong struggles with mental illness

specifically recommend that he not be committed to an inpatient setting

(especially not maximum security) upon his release, and that to do so