Vanin-Vergara v. Rardin

Background

Jair Vanin-Vergara, who was representing himself, was serving a 46-month prison sentence for drug-related charges at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester. When he was sentenced, he did not have a final order of removal and accrued 300 First Step Act time credits. Shortly before his anticipated release date, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a final order of removal. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(E)(i), that order made him ineligible to apply the credits to his sentence. His anticipated release date changed from August 11, 2024, to June 7, 2025.

Vanin-Vergara filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking application of the 300 credits. He did not dispute that the final order of removal made him ineligible to apply the credits. Instead, he argued that refusing to apply credits he had already earned violated the Constitution’s ex post facto clause because the removal order came after he accrued the credits. Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko recommended denying the petition. Vanin-Vergara objected to that recommendation.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed Vanin-Vergara’s objections and considered whether the First Step Act’s application violated the ex post facto clause. That clause prohibits retroactive laws that disadvantage an offender by changing the definition of criminal conduct or increasing punishment.

The court held that the First Step Act did not operate retroactively in Vanin-Vergara’s case. The statute was enacted before his arrest, conviction, and sentencing. The final order of removal triggered the statutory provision that made the credits inapplicable, but it did not change the law. The court characterized the result as a change in factual circumstances caused by the timing of events.

The court also held that Vanin-Vergara’s punishment was not increased. Although he would spend more time in custody than he would have spent if he could apply the credits, the court found that he was denied a potential benefit rather than given a longer sentence. Without the First Step Act, he would have served the same amount of time that he would now serve while ineligible to apply the credits.

The court distinguished Weaver v. Graham, in which a statutory change reduced the good-time credits available to prisoners and increased punishment for crimes committed before the change. Here, the court found no relevant change in the First Step Act after Vanin-Vergara committed his crimes.

Ruling

Judge John R. Tunheim overruled Vanin-Vergara’s objection, adopted the report and recommendation, denied the motion to expedite as moot, and denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court also ordered that the action be dismissed. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.