Hill v. King

Background

Antwain Euron Hill filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ treatment of his First Step Act earned time credits. In 2019, Hill received a 132-month sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine. That conviction is eligible for First Step Act time credits. In 2021, while serving that sentence, Hill pleaded guilty to possessing contraband as an inmate—specifically, a cellphone—and received a consecutive two-month sentence. Convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1791 are not eligible for First Step Act time credits.

The Bureau applied 18 U.S.C. § 3584(c), which requires multiple consecutive or concurrent prison terms to be treated as one aggregate term for administrative purposes. It therefore treated Hill’s sentences as a single 134-month sentence and determined that Hill could not earn First Step Act credits. Hill argued that he should remain eligible to earn credits toward the 132-month drug-conspiracy sentence.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and the Parties’ Positions

Magistrate Judge John Docherty recommended granting Hill’s petition and ordering the Bureau to give him the opportunity to earn and apply credits toward 132 months of his 134-month sentence. The recommendation concluded that the relevant statutes were ambiguous when applied to aggregated sentences and that the better reading would preserve eligibility for the longer sentence. It also found that the Bureau’s interpretation would produce an absurd result because a two-month ineligible sentence would make the much longer eligible sentence ineligible.

The warden objected, arguing that § 3584(c) requires aggregation for purposes of determining First Step Act eligibility. Hill supported the recommendation and argued that the First Step Act’s text, purposes, legislative history, and statutory interpretation principles favored treating the sentences separately.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Menendez stated that the recommendation and Hill’s arguments were persuasive if the court were deciding the issue without later developments in the law. The court nevertheless relied on recent decisions, including the Eighth Circuit’s unpublished decision in Tyler v. Garrett and earlier decisions described in the opinion, which treated aggregated sentences as one term for First Step Act eligibility. The court also discussed decisions from other federal appellate courts reaching the same conclusion.

The court concluded that when an aggregate term includes a sentence for an offense listed as disqualifying under 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4)(D), the prisoner is ineligible to receive First Step Act time credits. Because Hill’s aggregate sentence includes his two-month sentence for violating § 1791, he is not eligible to earn additional credits after the Bureau aggregated his sentences.

Previously Earned Credits and Disposition

The court identified a separate unresolved issue: whether Hill may receive or apply First Step Act credits he earned before receiving the disqualifying sentence. The record suggested that Hill participated in qualifying programs and activities after his 2019 sentence and before his 2021 cellphone conviction, but the court could not determine how many credits he earned or how many the Bureau later revoked. The opinion states that the identified appellate decisions had not specifically decided whether the Bureau may revoke credits earned before a disqualifying sentence.

The court therefore declined to adopt the Report and Recommendation’s recommendation that Hill’s petition be granted, but also found that denying the petition at that time would be unjust. The court recommitted the matter to Magistrate Judge Docherty for further proceedings concerning the previously earned credits. The order did not state that the petition was granted or denied.