Judge Admits ‘Mistake’ in Order on Jan. 6 Convict’s Release

MAGA News Central: Making American Businesses Great Again
The Epoch Times Header

Judge says he should not have specified a day of release for Kevin Seefried.

A federal judge on May 10 said he made a mistake in a prior order, which ordered the release of a man convicted in relation to the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden in March ordered the Bureau of Prisons to release Kevin Seefried “one year after the day on which he surrendered to custody.”

The order came as Judge McFadden granted a request from Mr. Seefried to leave prison pending resolution of his appeal because the only felony for which he was convicted, obstruction of an official proceeding, may be thrown out for many Jan. 6 convicts and defendants by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The day of release was predicated on Mr. Seefried serving time that is equal to what would be his reduced sentence if justices toss the conviction.

Lawyers for Mr. Seefried, though, wondered whether the judge forgot to take into account how inmates can earn reduced sentences for good behavior and portions of the First Step Act, which also gives inmates opportunities to reduce their sentences. Taking those factors into account, Mr. Seefried would actually be serving too much time if the release order were not altered, they said.

The lawyers said Judge McFadden should issue a new order stating that Mr. Seefried shall be released “one year after the day on which he surrendered to the custody of the attorney general, minus any Bureau of Prisons good time and earned time credit he has earned.

Prosecutors opposed the request, noting that “good time credit” is only available to inmates serving a prison term of more than one year and that Mr. Seefried’s reduced sentence would be one year.

As for the First Step Act (FSA), credits earned under parts of the law only apply once they equal the remainder of the prison term. While Mr. Seefried has accumulated 105 days of reduction under the act, he is unable to use the reduction because his sentence has not actually been reduced to one year because the Supreme Court’s decision on the obstruction charge is pending, prosecutors said.

By Zachary Stieber

Read Full Article on TheEpochTimes.com

Contact Your Elected Officials