Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

struggle4progress

(126,683 posts)
3. US v. David Rem
Sun Oct 27, 2024, 03:12 PM
Oct 2024

In 1991, David Rem pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). He was sentenced to 151 months in prison to be followed by five years of supervised release. Near the end of his prison sentence, Rem completed a substance abuse treatment program that qualified him for early release under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(e) (2) (B). In October 2000, Rem brought a declaratory judgment action asserting he should not be subject to 18 U.S.C. § 4042(b) (enacted in 1994), which requires that state and local law enforcement be notified in writing of the release of a person convicted of a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence. Rem argued Congress did not intend to apply § 4042(b) to a prisoner who qualifies for early release, his conviction did not fall under the statute, and the notification requirement is unconstitutional. In March 2001, the district court* granted summary judgment to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) ...

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/320/791/615717/

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Info on David Rem, billed...»Reply #3