United States v. Valdez

Citations: 935 F. Supp. 555; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11900; 1996 WL 469090Docket: Criminal No. 96-184

Court: District Court, D. New Jersey; August 16, 1996; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Jose A. Valdez pled guilty on May 24, 1996, to escaping from the Fairton Federal Correctional Institution while lawfully confined, violating 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). The Base Offense Level for this offense is set at 13 under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 2P1.1(a). The Court must determine if Valdez qualifies for a downward offense level adjustment under either U.S.S.G. § 2P1.1(b)(3) or § 3E1.1. 

The adjustment under § 2P1.1(b)(3) requires that Valdez escaped from a facility "similar to" a community corrections center, which could reduce his offense level by four levels. The United States argues that this adjustment does not apply. The Court notes that the definition of such a facility has not been addressed in this Circuit. In the case of *United States v. Hillstrom*, the Third Circuit mandated an evidentiary hearing to determine if a correctional facility qualifies as "similar to" a community corrections center, requiring a case-by-case analysis based on factors like the facility's purpose, level of inmate employment, available services, staff authority to prevent escape, and other operational characteristics.

The Court ultimately finds that Valdez is not entitled to a downward adjustment under either provision of the Sentencing Guidelines.

The United States submitted a comparative chart detailing the conditions of confinement at FPC-Fairton versus The Kintock Group Halfway House. The Defendant's counsel has stated he will not contest the chart's contents or request an evidentiary hearing, allowing the chart to be included as an undisputed fact in the case. The chart employs twenty-five criteria previously used in the Hillstrom case to assess the similarity between FPC-Allenwood and a community corrections center (CCC), specifically Catholic Services in Scranton, Pennsylvania. 

The Hillstrom court identified several critical differences between FPC-Allenwood and CCCs, particularly regarding safety and security protocols: staff at FPC-Allenwood are trained in firearms and can apprehend escapees outside the facility, while CCC staff cannot. Similar discrepancies exist between FPC-Fairton and Kintock Group, where FPC-Fairton staff can use force to prevent escapes and recapture escapees outside, unlike their Kintock counterparts. 

Additionally, FPC-Fairton provides medical and dental services at no cost to inmates, while Kintock requires inmates to pay for these services. Furthermore, the maximum sentence at FPC-Fairton is ten years, compared to eighteen months at Kintock, paralleling the distinctions noted in Hillstrom regarding FPC-Allenwood's ten-year sentence versus Catholic Services' one-year maximum. These factors collectively indicate that FPC-Fairton is not comparable to a CCC, thereby nullifying the applicability of the four-point offense level reduction under Section 2P1.1(b)(3) of the Sentencing Guidelines.

A plea agreement between the United States and the Defendant stipulates that the Defendant's guilty plea to the offense of escape demonstrates acceptance of responsibility, warranting a 2-point reduction in offense level under Section 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines. However, this stipulation is not binding on the sentencing court, which may reject any or all parts of the agreement. According to Section 3E1.1(a), a reduction is granted if the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility, supported by a guilty plea and truthful acknowledgment of conduct. Nonetheless, such acceptance can be undermined by inconsistent behavior. The Third Circuit's ruling in United States v. Ofchinick established that a guilty plea does not guarantee a reduction; voluntary surrender is particularly significant in escape cases as it indicates acceptance of responsibility. The Court in Ofchinick emphasized that a defendant's negotiations regarding surrender and failure to comply can demonstrate a lack of responsibility, denying them a reduction. While the Defendant's counsel argues that no court has ruled against providing a reduction for escapees who did not surrender, the current Court agrees that a lack of voluntary surrender is compelling evidence against acceptance of responsibility, which must be weighed with the specifics of each case.

The Defendant has not sufficiently accepted responsibility for his offense, which affects the eligibility for a reduction in the offense level under section 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines. While a guilty plea may indicate some acceptance, it does not guarantee such a reduction. Unlike the defendant in Ofchinick, who engaged in negotiations regarding surrender, the Defendant fled to the Dominican Republic for over sixteen months after escaping and failed to surrender voluntarily. This behavior undermines any claim of acceptance of responsibility. Consequently, the 2-point reduction under section 3E1.1(a) does not apply. Additionally, section 2P1.1(b)(3) allows for a 4-level decrease if the defendant escapes from a community corrections facility, which is relevant in this case. However, the plea agreement clarifies that it does not bind the sentencing court, which retains the authority to make independent factual findings and reject any stipulations made by the parties.