USA v. Eagle Feather

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .h.p q -noo
MAk (j y :QZ2
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 3:99-CR-30092-CBK
Plaintiff, ORDER
vs.
ARTHUR JAMES EAGLE FEATHER,
Defendant.
Defendant pleaded guilty to raping an 11-year old girl and was sentenced on June 19,
2000,to 82 years imprisonment with no eligibility for parole until he has served 1/3 of his
sentence. The Federal Bureau of Prisons("BOP")has calculated defendant's full release date as
December 29, 2048. https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. visited February 28, 2022. Defendant
sent a letter to the Clerk of Court requesting that coimsel be assigned to assist him in filing a
motion for compassionate release. The letter was docketed as a motion for compassionate
release under the First Step Act. The Public Defender has moved to withdraw as counsel.
DECISION
The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-473, Title 11, § 212, authorized, inter
alia, the district court, upon motion for the Director of the BOP,to reduce a prison term after
considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),"if it finds that extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction and that such a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
This provision is known as the compassionate release provision of the federal criminal code.
The First Step Act of 2018 amended that provision to authorize "the court, upon motion of the
Director ofthe Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant... may reduce a term of
imprisonment... if it finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction."
Pub. L. 115-391, § 603(b), 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(l)(A)(i)(emphasis supplied).
Defendant was sentenced for a crime committed on or before August 4, 1987. See
redacted [superseding] information. Doc. 21, and redacted factual basis statement. Doc. 25.
Defendant was not sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act but under the indeterminate
sentencing provisions, referred to as the "old law" sentencing provisions. Defendants subject to
Case 3:99-cr-30092-CBK Document 54 Filed 03/09/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

the old law sentencing scheme were also subject to the Parole Commission and Reorganization
Act of 1976,PL 94-233,90 Stat 219, then codified at 18 U.S.C. §4201-4218.
The Parole Act provided for early release of a prisoner as follows:
At any time upon motion of the Bureau of Prisons, the court may reduce any
minimum term to the time the defendant has served. The court shall have
jurisdiction to act upon the application at any time and no hearing shall be
required.
18 U.S.C. 4205(g). The Sentencing Reform Act repealed the Parole Act effective November 1,
1987, but the Parole Act remains the controlling law for inmates whose offenses occurred prior
to that date. 28 C.F.R. § 572.40.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently set forth an explanation
of the differences in compassionate release applicable to defendants subject to the old law and
those subject to the Sentencing Reform Act, as amended by the First Step Act:
From 1976 to 1984, § 4205(g) defined the procedures through which inmates
could gain compassionate release. Under the statute, a prisoner was not allowed
to directly request compassionate release by filing a motion in district court. Only
the BOP could seek such relief on behalf of the inmate. The SRA repealed
§ 4205(g)in 1984 and replaced it with § 3582(c)(1), effective on November 1,
1987. An amendment to the SRA established that § 3582(c)(1) only applies to
prisoners who offended on or after November 1, 1987, and inmates who
committed crimes on or before October 31, 1987, remain subject to § 4205(g)and
cannot themselves file a motion for compassionate release.
United States v. King. 24 F.4th 1226, 1228-29(9th Cir. 2022)(internal citations omitted).
Prior to the First Step Act, compassionate release under both the Parole Act and the
Sentencing Reform Act could only be initiated by the BOP. When Congress enacted the First
Step Act and amended § 3582(c) to authorize a prisoner to file a motion for compassionate
release in the district court. Congress did not amend § 4205(g) which was still applicable to old
law prisoners. Thus, defendant, like all old law prisoners, cannot seek compassionate release by
filing a motion in the district court. Only the BOP can initiate compassionate release on his
behalf.
District of South Dakota issued Standing Order 20-06, In the Matter of Establishing a
Procedure for Compassionate Release Motions under the First Step Act, which, inter alia,
automatically appoints the Federal Public Defender to "represent all defendants in criminal
Case 3:99-cr-30092-CBK Document 54 Filed 03/09/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

cases:(a) who previously were determined to be entitled to appointment of counsel or who are
now indigent; and (b) who may be eligible to seek compassionate release imder the First Step
Act." In this case, the Federal Public Defender has moved to withdraw from the appointment
because, as set forth above, the defendant is not entitled to seek compassionate release under the
First Step Act. The motion for withdrawal will be granted by separate order. Defendant's pro se
request for the appointment of counsel to assist in preparing a motion for compassionate release
should be denied because he is not entitled to move for compassionate release.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motions. Doc. 51, for the appointment of counsel and
his request for compassionate release are denied.
DATED this of March,2022.
BY THE COURT:
CHARLES B. KORNMANN
United States District Judge
Case 3:99-cr-30092-CBK Document 54 Filed 03/09/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>