Robertson v. Marques
- Wilhelmina Wright
- 0:19-cv-01009
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Robertson v. Marques, Judge Wright held the Bureau of Prisons’ good-time-credit calculation was lawful, overruled Robertson’s objections, and dismissed his petition without prejudice.
Edward S. Robertson was affected because his challenge to the Bureau of Prisons’ good-time-credit calculation was rejected and his petition was dismissed without prejudice. R. Marques, identified as the warden, was the respondent.
What happened
In Edward S. Robertson v. R. Marques, Robertson challenged how the Federal Bureau of Prisons calculated sentence credit for good behavior. He argued that the First Step Act required credit to be based on the sentence imposed by the judge.
The court rejected Robertson’s argument because the Act’s amendment had not yet taken effect. It also explained that the Supreme Court had already upheld the Bureau’s existing method, which based credit on the time a prisoner actually serves.
Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright overruled Robertson’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and dismissed Robertson’s petition without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Robertson v. Marques · No. 0:19-cv-01009
- Wilhelmina Wright
- June 13, 2019
Background
Edward S. Robertson, who was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota, filed a petition challenging the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of sentence credit for satisfactory behavior, commonly called good-time credit. Robertson argued that the First Step Act of 2018 required good-time credit to be calculated from the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge rather than from the time the prisoner actually serves.
Before the First Step Act, the Bureau of Prisons interpreted 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) to calculate good-time credit based on time actually served. The Act amended that statute, but the amendment would not take effect until the Attorney General completed and released a required risk-and-needs assessment system. Robertson did not dispute that the system had not been completed, that the statutory 210-day period had not expired, or that the amendment would take effect around mid-July 2019.
Court’s Analysis
Robertson instead argued that the statute’s legislative history showed that the Bureau’s existing calculation method was unlawful even before the amendment took effect. The court rejected that argument.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Barber v. Thomas, which upheld the Bureau’s method of calculating good-time credit based on the time a prisoner actually serves. The Supreme Court had concluded that the method was consistent with both the text and legislative history of § 3624(b). The district court stated that accepting Robertson’s argument would require it to disregard binding Supreme Court precedent. It also explained that the later statutory amendment did not necessarily show that the Supreme Court’s earlier interpretation was wrong.
Disposition
The court concluded that the First Step Act’s amendment was not yet effective and that the Bureau’s existing calculation method was consistent with Supreme Court precedent. It overruled Robertson’s objections, adopted the May 8, 2019 report and recommendation in full, and dismissed Robertson’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.