Bookmark and Share
Overview:
The US Parole Commission (USPC) is a semi-autonomous agency within the US Department of Justice that decides parole cases involving certain federal and District of Columbia (DC) prisoners. A much larger commission at one time, the USPC has seen its role shrink and its very existence threatened over the past 20 years following a landmark change in sentencing laws in the 1980s.
 
more
History:
 
The federal government’s first parole board was established in 1930 in Washington, DC, consisting of three full-time members appointed by the US Attorney General (AG). The parole board’s primary responsibility was to decide whether eligible federal prisoners should be allowed to finish out their sentences outside of prison while still under law enforcement supervision. The parole board reported to the Bureau of Prisons until August 1945 when the Attorney General ordered the board to report directly to the AG.
 
Following World War II, increases in the US prison population caused a corresponding rise in the workload for the parole board. As a result, the Attorney General in 1948 appointed two additional members to the board, increasing its panel to five members. The board’s size grew again in 1950 when legislation expanded it to eight members. The legislation also changed who appointed board members. From then on, the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed members for six-year, staggered terms. The 1950 legislation also shifted the board’s reporting duties to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Three of the eight members were designated by the Attorney General to serve as a Youth Corrections Division pursuant to the Youth Corrections Act.
 
Even more changes were implemented in the 1970s to accommodate the growing caseload of the board. In 1974 the board reorganized itself by creating five regions throughout the country in order to better handle parole hearings. Each region was assigned one board member and five hearing examiners. The chairman and two members remained in Washington, DC, at the headquarters office. Other changes included the creation of explicit guidelines for parole release decision-making, written reasons for parole decisions and an administrative appeals process.
 
In May 1976, Congress adopted the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act. The legislation re-titled the Board of Parole as the United States Parole Commission (USPC) and established it as an independent agency within DOJ. The act provided for nine commissioners appointed by the President for six-year terms. These included a chairman, five regional commissioners and a three-member National Appeals Board. The commission also absorbed the duties of the Youth Corrections Division, which was eliminated.
 
Eight years later, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 created the US Sentencing Commission which established sentencing guidelines for the federal courts and a regime of determinate sentences. The chairman of the Parole Commission became an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Sentencing Commission. The decision to establish sentencing guidelines was based in part on the success of the Parole Commission’s development and implementation of parole guidelines. In April 1987, the Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress its initial set of sentencing guidelines, which took effect on November 1, 1987. Defendants sentenced for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987 served determinate terms under the sentencing guidelines and were not eligible for parole consideration. Post-release supervision, termed “supervised release,” was provided as a separate part of the sentence under the jurisdiction of the court.
 
The adoption of determinate sentencing under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 was supposed to mark the beginning of the end for the Parole Commission. The act allowed the Parole Commission to retain jurisdiction over defendants who committed their offenses prior to Nov. 1, 1987, while at the same time the act declared that the commission would cease to exist as of Nov. 1, 1992 (five years after the sentencing guidelines took effect). But this phase-out provision did not adequately provide for persons sentenced under the law in effect prior to November 1, 1987 who had not yet completed their sentences. Eliminating or reducing parole eligibility for such cases would have raised ex post facto issues. Congress decided to avoid this problem by extending the life of the Parole Commission until Nov. 1, 1997, as declared under the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990.
 
By the time the mid-‘90s rolled around, Congress still wasn’t in the mood for tackling the ex post facto issue, so it adopted the Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1996 which again extended the life of the commission, this time until Nov. 1, 2002. The act also reduced the number of parole commissioners to two by Dec. 31, 1999, and one commissioner by Dec. 31, 2001. It also required the Attorney General, beginning in 1998, to report to Congress annually on whether it was more cost effective for the Parole Commission to continue as a separate agency or for its remaining functions to be transferred elsewhere. The Attorney General has reported each year that it is more cost effective for the Parole Commission to continue as a separate agency.
 
The following year, the Parole Commission received a new lease on life thanks to federal legislation geared around improving the governance of the District of Columbia. The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 abolished the District of Columbia Board of Parole by August 5, 2000, and transferred its responsibilities to the US Parole Commission, which assumed jurisdiction over all parole and mandatory release supervision and revocation decisions for DC prisoners. Given this new power over DC offenders, the Parole Commission was in need of new commissioners, so the act reversed the 1996 legislation and allowed for five commissioners.
 
The 1997 act also required the District of Columbia to move to a determinate sentencing system for certain offenses, imposed terms of supervised release to follow the determinate sentences and gave the Parole Commission ongoing responsibility for supervision and revocation decisions for DC prisoners subject to terms of supervised release under the new determinate sentencing system. Three years later, DC enacted a determinate sentencing system for all offenses committed on or after August 5, 2000.
Over time Congress also has given the Parole Commission additional responsibilities, including parole matters involving foreign transfer treaty cases for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987 (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988); jurisdiction over all state defendants who are accepted into the US Marshals Service Witness Protection Program (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988); the responsibility forthe release and supervision of all remaining indeterminate sentence DC Code felony offenders (National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997); and responsibility for the supervision of all new-law DC Code determinate sentence felony offenders released on supervised release (National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997). In addition to these duties, the Parole Commission continues to have responsibility for the remaining “old-law” indeterminate sentence federal offenders in prison or under supervision, as well as ongoing responsibility for military code offenders serving sentences in Bureau of Prisons institutions.
 
The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act of 2002 extended the life of the Parole Commission until November 1, 2005. Additional legislation was crafted in 2005 that provided for another three-year extension until 2008.
 

Bibliography for Federal Parole System

more
What it Does:
 
The US Parole Commission (USPC) is a semi-autonomous agency within the US Department of Justice that handles all matters of parole for eligible federal and District of Columbia (DC) prisoners. The USPC makes parole release decisions; authorizes method of release and the condition under which release occurs; issues warrants for violation of supervision; determines probable cause for revocation process; prescribes, modifies and monitors compliance with the terms and conditions governing offender’s behavior while on parole or mandatory or supervised release; revokes parole, mandatory or supervised release of offenders; releases from supervision those offenders who no longer pose a risk to public safety; issues rules, regulations and guidelines pertaining to the national parole policy.
 
The USPC has jurisdiction over the following types of offenders:
  • All Federal offenders who committed an offense before November 1, 1987;
  • All DC Code offenders;
  • Uniform Code of Military Justice Offenders who are confined in a Bureau of Prisons facility;
  • Transfer treaty cases (US citizens convicted in foreign countries who have elected to serve their sentence in this country); and
  • State probationers and parolees in the Federal Witness Protection Program.
 
Because of changes in federal law in the 1980s that created a determinate sentencing system, the USPC’s role has changed over the past two decades. While it still has jurisdiction over some federal prisoners, the majority of cases that USPC oversees are DC criminals. At the end of FY 2005, more than two-thirds of the nearly 15,000 persons under USPC supervision were persons convicted of breaking laws in the District of Columbia. For the 12-month period ending March 31, 2006, USPC issued almost five times as many warrants for DC Code offenders as it issued for federal offenders (2,013 vs. 412).
 
Organizational Structure
The chairman and commissioners of the USPC carry out numerous duties. They render decisions in National Appeals Board cases; create and maintain a national parole policy; grant or deny parole to all eligible federal and DC prisoners; modify parole conditions; and/or revoke the parole or mandatory/supervised releases of offenders who have violated the conditions of supervision.
 
The Executive Office provides management and advisory services to the commissioners. This includes providing human resources management and training, budget and financial management, contracts and procurement, facilities and property management, telecommunications and security.
 
The Office of Case Operations conducts parole hearings with federal and DC prisoners and parole revocation hearings with parole violators. It also plans and schedules parole hearing dockets, ensures that victims and witnesses are given an opportunity for input into the parole decision-making process and administrates the records management program.
 
The Office of Case Services monitors the progress of prisoners and parolees through pre-release and post-release. It prepares and issues warrants, drafts letters of
reprimand, requests and analyzes preliminary interviews and issues parole certificates.
 
The Office of Information Technology delivers and supports information technology systems and services. It also maintains and reports statistical workload data and management of the quality control functions.
 

The Office of the General Counsel advises commissioners and staff on interpretation of the agency’s enabling statutes. It drafts implementing rules and regulations and assists US Attorney’s Offices in defending the USPC against lawsuits brought by prisoners and parolees. The office also oversees responses to requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act.

more
Where Does the Money Go:
 
Those who are most interested in the work of the Parole Commission are convicted criminals who come under its jurisdiction and the victims of said criminals. The USPC maintains a victims program that offers information on how to participate in parole hearings. While the USPC largely maintains a low-profile, its decisions in some parole cases have garnered widespread attention or controversy. 
 

 

more
Controversies:

 

Sara Jane Moore
In January 2008 the USPC paroled Sara Jane Moore, 77, the one-time attempted assassin of President Gerald Ford. Moore had been serving a life sentence for trying to shoot President Ford outside a San Francisco hotel in 1975. She was denied parole in the mid-1980s but was given another chance at freedom under federal sentencing regulations that call for considering paroling prisoners after serving 30 years if they are not deemed a threat and have behaved well while incarcerated.
 
Moore did escape for four hours from a federal prison in 1979, but a spokesman for the USPC said it appeared nothing in her recent record blocked her release. Moore expressed regret for trying to kill President Ford, who died in December 2006.
One of Ford’s Would-Be Assassins Is Paroled (by Randal C. Archibold, New York Times)
 
Manuel Noriega
In January 2007, the USPC announced that Manuel Noriega, the former dictator of Panama, would be released from his US prison in September. Noriega was the target of Operation Just Cause, the code name for the military invasion of Panama in 1989 that led to his arrest on charges of drug-trafficking. Noriega was tried, convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison in Miami. The Parole Commission determined that after serving almost two-thirds of his sentence, Noriega was eligible for parole.
 
Noriega, however, still remains in his Miami prison. Upon his pending release from US prison, French officials requested the former dictator be extradited to France so he could be tried on charges of money laundering. Noriega’s lawyers have fought the extradition through various appeals, forcing Noriega to remain in prison past the deadline for his release. Noriega has said he wants to return to Panama, which has also requested his extradition in order to try Noriega on charges of murder.
 
Leonard Peltier
In some instances, the USPC has gained attention for what it hasn’t done. The case of Leonard Peltier has drawn ridicule from civil rights activists and supporters of Peltier who insist the Native American man was framed in 1975 for the murder of two FBI agents on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. The Parole Commission has sided with the FBI and its supporters in refusing to grant parole to Peltier, who’s serving two consecutive life sentences at Leavenworth federal prison.
The Martyrdom of Leonard Peltier (by Scott Anderson, Outside)
 
Anthony Kelly
From 2002 to 2004, the USPC found itself facing ridicule along with other government corrections agencies in a series of articles in the Washington Post for allowing a violent felon to go free. The felon, Anthony Kelly, was subsequently arrested on charges of killing three people, raping two women, assaulting a police officer and stealing five guns and five cars—all in the nine months after he was paroled.
 
At the time he was paroled, Kelly had served half of a 10-year sentence for threatening to kill a relative with a handgun. That crime was preceded by convictions of 34 second-degree burglaries, 12 car thefts and 27 thefts from autos. Prison records also had noted that Kelly repeatedly fought with inmates and argued with guards and was described as “extremely troubled” and “a pathological liar.”
 
Yet the USPC granted Kelly parole in December 2001. An investigation by the Washington Post found that the commission failed to catch important details and falsehoods regarding Kelly while reviewing his case. The mistakes included not identifying the phony GED certificate Kelly had submitted or uncovering the millions of dollars in loans Kelly had sought from banks for a nonexistent business. The false GED helped Kelly maintain an “ordinary program achievement” record, a status that changed his score on an agency grid from “deny parole” to getting parole “with highest level of supervision.”
As Lapses In Parole Rose, So Did Killings (by Neely Tucker, Washington Post)

Who Let a Killer Into Erika Smith's World?

(by Colbert I. King, Washington Post)

more
See all 13 comments

Comments

Lynn blasengame 2 years ago
I'm writing my concern for William josegh helbig Jr I would like to know his parole date he says that his date has not changed I got his paper work says he has not received his paper work about his date being changed the letter I got says 11-22-2018 hesays it's still showing 2020 will you please let me know he is in elkton Ohio prison Lisbon Ohio his number is 16660-032 email me at this email thank you
Martin CPL USMC 1993-1997 2 years ago
I am once again writing to ensure that Daryl Antle is never released from prison for the murder of a fellow Marine. I just spent an evening discussing old times with my Platoon Sgt and Juan's name came up. We recalled the days prior to them finding Juan's body. We were drinking a few beers when two of the 4 that where found guilty walked by and we struck up a conversation. I recall asking them if they had found Guerrero yet and where they thought he might have disappeared to. These two with stone cold faces just lied and made up theories about where he might have ran off to. Guerrero was an outstanding Marine and he did not deserve what happened to him. Your son pulling that trigger ended the life of a son, brother and fellow Marine. He should have received the death penalty and I truly hope he stays in prison until he dies. As long as I am alive I will be following this to ensure that he never gets freedom. I am sure it pains you to have to read this as a father I could not imagine your pain. However he did this and he needs to pay the full price..
vickie blasengame 3 years ago
I want to comment on William helbig he should meet the requirements for early release program since there was no actual crime besides here say his number is 16660-032 he was not caught with no drugs or even cooking drugs no violence was committed he should be able to get two points reduction so he can get sooner please look at his record and let him be on early release program he wants to get a job start his life over get a house live his life without drugs and I think he should have that chance
marv 3 years ago
i'm trying to find help for a dear friend of mine. she have this guy who will not move out her house no matter what she does she tried calling the police that doesn't work.he has hit her several times and threaten to do it again if she call the police or his parole officer.she can't even go to the restroom without him going let alone calling and showing up on her job.but what really baffles me is how he can smoke marijauna all day then go report and pass every one of his ua'. will somebody/anybody please help
Charles Alexander 4 years ago
Mr and Mrs Antle I am also a fellow marine that was a close friend to your son Darryl Allen Antle 15126-045 and the murder victim Juan Gurrero . The pain and deception that was felt throughout the platoon has been a great sorrow that still lingers. If you really knew who how great a person Juan was and how this act of violence was .making an appeal on parole should never be considered
D'Juan Tobias 4 years ago
In response to Juanita Antle,about your son Darryl Allen Antle 15126-045. My name is D'Juan Tobias I was a Corporal E-4, in the platoon that your son was in. Your son along with the other Marines that took part in the beating and killing of Lance Corporal Juan Guerrero, 20. Should have gotten the death penalty but since they pleaded guilty the max the military could charge them is with life. They took away a good Marine and a brother of mine I think about him often and I will make sure to continue to follow this and make sure Antle and rest stay where they belong behind bars..And I will be asking others from our platoon do write and do the same
CS 4 years ago
Juanita Antle, Your son sat in my barracks room and feigned concern over the man he shot in the back of the head. His parole should never happen. 18 years later, I still remember the pain and chaos he caused. I still remember the fake anger and hurt they worked so hard to make us all believe. He and his cohorts took us on wild goose chases while looking for THEIR victim at night. They broke a sacred bond with a brother. Darryl may have made changes in his life, but none of those changes will bring back a lost son, brother, or friend. He committed the crime, and should be committed to the time. And you should all be thankful you have a child as the Marines should have sought the death penalty for their crimes.
Sandra Coaxum 5 years ago
Hello, my name is Sandra K. Coaxum, the Mother of Derrick M Williams. I emailed a letter to your office a few weeks ago regarding information provided to my son by his case worker who claimed she got the information from the Commission. I have enclosed a copy of that letter as a reference where Mrs. Alvarez perhaps accidentally entered incorrect information in my son’s record claiming a past history of drug and alcohol abuse. As previously stated Derrick has never abused substances prescription or otherwise in his life; at first Mrs. Alvarez stated that she would remove the information from Derrick’s file. Then Mrs. Alvarez claimed she spoke to Derrick’s Parole Officer, who she claimed was someone named Mr. Miller; at least I believe that is the name she used. Please review the enclosed document, as far as Derrick and I know the erroneous information about alcohol and drug use has finally been removed from his record. In the letter written to your office dated 5 November 2013 Derrick stated that he has arrived at the end of his incarceration and feels that Mrs. Alvarez is trying to accomplish two things: 1. To send him on his way with these special stipulations, though unjust fully imposed (the drug and alcohol abuse program). 2. To drag her feet on his halfway house paperwork denying him the time he desperately needs to coordinate. Derrick has served the past 10 years in prison and is scheduled to be released back into society within the next two to three weeks. When he spoke to his case manager on the same day he received the Notice of Action his case worker Mrs. Alvarez told him that she had contacted his Parole Officer. She claimed Derrick’s parole officer told her he was going to leave the special stipulation in his record concerning the erroneous information about drug and alcohol in case my son decided to turn to drugs. As previously stated this issue has been resolved as far as we know from Mrs. Alvarez, but there is more to this story. When I asked MS Alvarez who my son’s parole officer was she told me that “he would not get a Parole Officer until he gets released”. So how then did Mrs. Alvarez speak to Derrick’s Parole Officer if he doesn’t have one? On 14 November, 2013, Derrick had a telephone conversation with Kia (female friend) and stated his frustration with the lack of assistance he was receiving from Mrs. Alvarez and her current supervisor whose name I do not know at this time. On 12 November, 2013 I sent a priority letter to my son; inside the package was his application for Acoustic Edge (the school that he plans to attend in Houston after his release), which required his signature. The school will be paid for by the Montgomery GI Bill as Derrick was a military service member prior to his incarceration. To expedite the process we also included a self-addressed prestamped envelope for Derrick to mail his signed application directly to Acoustic Edge. The envelope was returned to us with a paper stating that we sent objects (stamped self-addressed envelope) that inmates could not have. This in itself made no sense as Safford has never sent us so much as a rule book pertaining to what is or isn’t permitted to send to our son. On 14 November, 2013 Derrick had a conversation with his case manager Mrs. Brown concerning residency in Houston to attend Acoustic Edge Institute. Basically, he needed to know what the procedures were for him to attend school in Houston if he did not have a residency address there. He asked Mrs. Brown if she could find out this information for him; however she told my son to ask his family to do it. In the minutes prior to her telling my son to have his family find out this information, Mrs. Brown rather rudely told my son he needed to stop acting like nobody’s trying to help him. When Derrick asked her how she knew what he was acting like since he had only talked to her twice, Mrs. Brown said she knew because they read the inmates email and listen to their telephone conversations. While monitoring emails and phone calls are normal and acceptable for the environment at Safford; what’s not acceptable is the manner and tone in which she spoke to my son. It’s degrading, unethical and borders on harassment. At this point Derrick emailed and asked me to call and see if I could get in contact with the individuals at the USC to try to find out who is working on his case and ask them how to move forward. He also asked me to get in touch with the CCM in Houston and find out exactly what it is he has to do in order to get them to approve his relocation to Houston if he doesn’t have a residency address. Derrick also asked me to contact the CCM office to see if they would accept the halfway house as his residency address. On 14 November 2013 I got an email from Derrick stating that the half-way house would not accept him if he did not have an address to be released to. According to him they (whoever they are) told him that if he doesn’t have a residency address in Houston that they will be sending him back to Alaska (home of record). Thankfully, this issue has now been resolved because Acoustic Edge provides housing for their students. The housing consists on an apartment and from what I was told they are pretty nice apartments. I also downloaded information from the United States Department of Justice and emailed those to Derrick on Corrlinks to try to assist him with a smooth transition back into society per Mrs. Brown’s comments to my son. On 14 November, 2013 I spoke to my son on Corrlinks and everything was well with him. My son and I communicate regularly via Corrlinks, especially as he gets closer to being released back into society; however after our correspondence on 14 November all communication stopped and I could not get in touch with my son. Thus having no other means of contacting my son I waited patiently for any communication from him. Finally on 18 November, 2013 I called Safford and spoke to Derrick’s case worker who I now know as Mrs. Alvarez who told me that my son was on lockdown, but she could not discuss why with me because she needed to ask him first. I asked Mrs. Alvarez to obtain my sons permission to speak to me and get back to me, but to this day (11/30/2013) she has not gotten back to me. I received a letter from Derrick a few days later explaining that he was in a place called the SHU because Mrs. Alvarez decided to go back and listened to his phone messages and stated that he threatened her. I have enclosed a copy of the charge sheet or should I say the Incident Report filled out by Mrs. Alvarez which states that on 14 November 2013, while monitoring phone calls she listened to a phone call placed by inmate Williams, Derrick, #38992-048, which he placed on 8 November 2013 at 8:37 p.m. At approximately seven minutes and 15 seconds into the phone call inmate Williams made reference to me, and made the following statement: “Lots of people have a problem with her, she’s messing up people’s lives. Someone is going to get pissed off and it’s not going to be so good for her one of these days, not everybody has restraints, not everybody is going sit back and put up with this crap.” Upon listening to this statement, and knowing inmate William assaultive history, I perceived this statement as being a threat to my safety. While Derrick used a bad choice of words this statement was made out of pure frustration resulting from Mrs. Alvarez ill treatment of him and apparently other inmates. While Mrs. Alvarez speaks of my son’s assaultive past, I am going to speak of his entire incarnation period. Derrick has been in prison for nine years and seven months with no infractions on his record. Why on earth would he wait until he has approximately thirty days before his release to threaten Mrs. Alvarez? This Case worker has harassed and humiliated my son from the day he arrived at Safford by introducing him as the kidnapper to the populace. From day one they have been friction and tension in their relationship, however, my son has maintained his composure looking forward to his release and treated Mrs. Alvarez in a professional manner giving her the respect she deserves. I feel this is a personal vendetta against my son negated by Mrs. Alvarez to antagonize and harass him into doing something stupid designed to keep him in prison. The incident report aforementioned by Mrs. Alvarez was taken out of content, as I read nowhere in it where my son mentioned her by name nor stated he was going to harm her. I find it rather presumptuous of her to know for a fact the he was referring to her. I pray that this matter will be thoroughly investigated and not just based on Mrs. Alvarez assumptions and over- reaction so that justice may prevail and my son will be released back into society as is mandated. If needed, I will take the appropriate actions to see that justice is served and that my son will be released from prison as scheduled and that this farce is brought to light so that no other mother or should I say parent will have to go through this type of heartache with their child. Inmates have rights also and my son rights have been violated and I want justice for him. Respectfully, Mrs. Sandra Coaxum
Martin 5 years ago
Juanita Antle. Your son killed a very close friend of mine. He does not deserve to be released. Juan Guerrero was taken into the jungles of Hawaii and shot in the head buy your son. Guerrero and I had coffee everyday at the motor pool before he checked out his vehicle. We talked about a lot of things he was a great guy and he was taken. I was deployed when your son killed him. We had made plans to hang out when I got back. I truly hope your son never gets out. I have followed this since 1996 and i will never stop.
Juanita Antle 5 years ago
My son Darryl Allen Antle 15126-045 made an appeal on the results of the parole Boards recommendations, sent in August.He never recieved a response. He is now at Federal Medical Center,P.O. Box 14500, Lexington, Ky.40512-4500. He ask that we see if he could get a response sent to his new address. Patiently waiting for his release. Pzrents, Juanita and Dean Antle

Leave a comment

Founded: 1930
Annual Budget: $12 million
Employees: 96
U.S. Parole Commission
Smoot, J. Patricia Wilson
Chairman

J. Patricia “Trish” Wilson Smoot was designated as chairman of the U.S. Parole Commission (USPC) on May 29, 2015. She had served as acting chairman since Jan. 30, 2015, having been appointed to the Commission by President Barack Obama, confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 16, 2010, and sworn in November 1, 2010.

 

Smoot’s destiny appeared to be sealed by the time she was old enough to learn that numerous members of her family were medical professionals. Her dream was to become a physician just like her father, who had trained at Harvard University. But by the time she enrolled in college in 1981, a sense of squeamishness over the prospect of working in the medical field put a damper on her plans.

 

Smoot earned a B.A. in English and sociology (with a focus on legal studies) from Bucknell University in 1985, and a J.D. from Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America in 1988.

 

Smoot got a job working as a judicial law clerk for Judge Susan R. Holmes Winfield of the Superior Court in the District of Columbia. While Smoot points to her mother—who had been ill most of Smoot’s life—as the source of her strength, it is Winfield whom Smoot credits as her inspiration and source of character-building at that early stage of her career.

 

Smoot next took a job as an associate at a tort defense litigation firm. Her longtime desire to help those in need led her to become a public defender in Prince George's County, Maryland, but she found that the system’s lack of resources hampered her ability to accomplish what she was there to do.

 

When Smoot saw an interview with then-U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on television, in which he said that attorneys who excel at defense work make the best candidates for prosecutors, she applied for one of the 15 positions he had available and landed the job. From June 1994 to November 2002, she worked under Holder as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. In that post, she served as a trial attorney, deputy chief of the misdemeanor section, senior attorney of the sex offense division, and eventually director of professional development to oversee the attorney and staff training programs.

 

In December 2002, Smoot became deputy state's attorney for Prince George's County, overseeing the juvenile and district court divisions, the Domestic Violence Unit, and the Sex Offense and Child Abuse Unit. She concurrently served as an advisor to the state’s attorney, Glenn F. Ivey.

 

Beginning her tenure as a USPC commissioner in November 2010, Smoot worked to establish, in 2012, the USPC Mental Health Docket, which provides non-violent criminal offenders who have mental health disorders with an alternative to incarceration. The program offers mentoring services, job training, and patient treatment opportunities. For several months during her Commission tenure, Smoot also served as USPC acting general counsel.

 

Smoot is married and has two grown children.

-Danny Biederman

 

To Learn More:

 Official Biography

 Meet the New U.S. Parole Commissioner (Law Officer)

more
Fulwood, Isaac
Previous Chairman

Isaac Fulwood Jr. served on the U.S. Parole Commission from November 2004, after he was appointed by President George W. Bush until his retirement at the end of January 2015. President Barack Obama promoted Fulwood to chairman of the commission in May 2009. The Commission is a semi-autonomous agency within the US Department of Justice that decides parole cases involving certain federal and District of Columbia (DC) prisoners.

 
A native of Washington, DC, Fulwood was born on April 28, 1940, at Freedman’s Hospital. The son of a construction worker, he grew up with his parents and eight siblings and was educated in the DC public school system. After graduating from Eastern High School in 1959, Fulwood went to work an apprentice to his uncles, Ted and Bob, at Linens of the Week repairing laundry machines. 
 
He married Ruth Johnson in August 1962, and originally thought about becoming a fireman. But when no job opportunities arose, Fulwood turned to the DC police department and joined the force in 1964.
 
He went on to spend 29 years as a law enforcement officer in DC, including three years as chief of police (1989-1992).
 
After retiring from the police force, he was appointed executive director of the DC mayor’s Youth Initiative Office, putting him in charge of managing, planning and directing developmental programs and activities for children and youth.
 
From 1993 to 1994, Fulwood served as senior marketing representative for Pepsi Cola in Washington, DC, and as a consultant to the Systems Planning Corporation on the use and development of military equipment by civilian law enforcement organizations.
 
He is an adjunct professor at the University of the District of Columbia, where he teaches law enforcement subjects, community policing, and ethics in law enforcement. Additionally, he serves as a special assistant recruiting law enforcement personnel for enrollment at the university.
 
Fulwood has worked as an expert on security issues for the law office of Gilbert and Kiernan as well as on the board of directors for 16 organizations.
 
Fulwood and his wife have a son, Gary, and a daughter, Angela.
 
Chairman Isaac Fulwood Jr. (U.S. Department of Justice)
Interview with Isaac Fulwood, Jr. (by Pat Taffe Driscoll, Capitol Hill History Project)
Biography (ConnectDC2000)
more
Bookmark and Share
Overview:
The US Parole Commission (USPC) is a semi-autonomous agency within the US Department of Justice that decides parole cases involving certain federal and District of Columbia (DC) prisoners. A much larger commission at one time, the USPC has seen its role shrink and its very existence threatened over the past 20 years following a landmark change in sentencing laws in the 1980s.
 
more
History:
 
The federal government’s first parole board was established in 1930 in Washington, DC, consisting of three full-time members appointed by the US Attorney General (AG). The parole board’s primary responsibility was to decide whether eligible federal prisoners should be allowed to finish out their sentences outside of prison while still under law enforcement supervision. The parole board reported to the Bureau of Prisons until August 1945 when the Attorney General ordered the board to report directly to the AG.
 
Following World War II, increases in the US prison population caused a corresponding rise in the workload for the parole board. As a result, the Attorney General in 1948 appointed two additional members to the board, increasing its panel to five members. The board’s size grew again in 1950 when legislation expanded it to eight members. The legislation also changed who appointed board members. From then on, the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appointed members for six-year, staggered terms. The 1950 legislation also shifted the board’s reporting duties to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Three of the eight members were designated by the Attorney General to serve as a Youth Corrections Division pursuant to the Youth Corrections Act.
 
Even more changes were implemented in the 1970s to accommodate the growing caseload of the board. In 1974 the board reorganized itself by creating five regions throughout the country in order to better handle parole hearings. Each region was assigned one board member and five hearing examiners. The chairman and two members remained in Washington, DC, at the headquarters office. Other changes included the creation of explicit guidelines for parole release decision-making, written reasons for parole decisions and an administrative appeals process.
 
In May 1976, Congress adopted the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act. The legislation re-titled the Board of Parole as the United States Parole Commission (USPC) and established it as an independent agency within DOJ. The act provided for nine commissioners appointed by the President for six-year terms. These included a chairman, five regional commissioners and a three-member National Appeals Board. The commission also absorbed the duties of the Youth Corrections Division, which was eliminated.
 
Eight years later, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 created the US Sentencing Commission which established sentencing guidelines for the federal courts and a regime of determinate sentences. The chairman of the Parole Commission became an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Sentencing Commission. The decision to establish sentencing guidelines was based in part on the success of the Parole Commission’s development and implementation of parole guidelines. In April 1987, the Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress its initial set of sentencing guidelines, which took effect on November 1, 1987. Defendants sentenced for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987 served determinate terms under the sentencing guidelines and were not eligible for parole consideration. Post-release supervision, termed “supervised release,” was provided as a separate part of the sentence under the jurisdiction of the court.
 
The adoption of determinate sentencing under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 was supposed to mark the beginning of the end for the Parole Commission. The act allowed the Parole Commission to retain jurisdiction over defendants who committed their offenses prior to Nov. 1, 1987, while at the same time the act declared that the commission would cease to exist as of Nov. 1, 1992 (five years after the sentencing guidelines took effect). But this phase-out provision did not adequately provide for persons sentenced under the law in effect prior to November 1, 1987 who had not yet completed their sentences. Eliminating or reducing parole eligibility for such cases would have raised ex post facto issues. Congress decided to avoid this problem by extending the life of the Parole Commission until Nov. 1, 1997, as declared under the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990.
 
By the time the mid-‘90s rolled around, Congress still wasn’t in the mood for tackling the ex post facto issue, so it adopted the Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1996 which again extended the life of the commission, this time until Nov. 1, 2002. The act also reduced the number of parole commissioners to two by Dec. 31, 1999, and one commissioner by Dec. 31, 2001. It also required the Attorney General, beginning in 1998, to report to Congress annually on whether it was more cost effective for the Parole Commission to continue as a separate agency or for its remaining functions to be transferred elsewhere. The Attorney General has reported each year that it is more cost effective for the Parole Commission to continue as a separate agency.
 
The following year, the Parole Commission received a new lease on life thanks to federal legislation geared around improving the governance of the District of Columbia. The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 abolished the District of Columbia Board of Parole by August 5, 2000, and transferred its responsibilities to the US Parole Commission, which assumed jurisdiction over all parole and mandatory release supervision and revocation decisions for DC prisoners. Given this new power over DC offenders, the Parole Commission was in need of new commissioners, so the act reversed the 1996 legislation and allowed for five commissioners.
 
The 1997 act also required the District of Columbia to move to a determinate sentencing system for certain offenses, imposed terms of supervised release to follow the determinate sentences and gave the Parole Commission ongoing responsibility for supervision and revocation decisions for DC prisoners subject to terms of supervised release under the new determinate sentencing system. Three years later, DC enacted a determinate sentencing system for all offenses committed on or after August 5, 2000.
Over time Congress also has given the Parole Commission additional responsibilities, including parole matters involving foreign transfer treaty cases for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987 (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988); jurisdiction over all state defendants who are accepted into the US Marshals Service Witness Protection Program (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988); the responsibility forthe release and supervision of all remaining indeterminate sentence DC Code felony offenders (National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997); and responsibility for the supervision of all new-law DC Code determinate sentence felony offenders released on supervised release (National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997). In addition to these duties, the Parole Commission continues to have responsibility for the remaining “old-law” indeterminate sentence federal offenders in prison or under supervision, as well as ongoing responsibility for military code offenders serving sentences in Bureau of Prisons institutions.
 
The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act of 2002 extended the life of the Parole Commission until November 1, 2005. Additional legislation was crafted in 2005 that provided for another three-year extension until 2008.
 

Bibliography for Federal Parole System

more
What it Does:
 
The US Parole Commission (USPC) is a semi-autonomous agency within the US Department of Justice that handles all matters of parole for eligible federal and District of Columbia (DC) prisoners. The USPC makes parole release decisions; authorizes method of release and the condition under which release occurs; issues warrants for violation of supervision; determines probable cause for revocation process; prescribes, modifies and monitors compliance with the terms and conditions governing offender’s behavior while on parole or mandatory or supervised release; revokes parole, mandatory or supervised release of offenders; releases from supervision those offenders who no longer pose a risk to public safety; issues rules, regulations and guidelines pertaining to the national parole policy.
 
The USPC has jurisdiction over the following types of offenders:
  • All Federal offenders who committed an offense before November 1, 1987;
  • All DC Code offenders;
  • Uniform Code of Military Justice Offenders who are confined in a Bureau of Prisons facility;
  • Transfer treaty cases (US citizens convicted in foreign countries who have elected to serve their sentence in this country); and
  • State probationers and parolees in the Federal Witness Protection Program.
 
Because of changes in federal law in the 1980s that created a determinate sentencing system, the USPC’s role has changed over the past two decades. While it still has jurisdiction over some federal prisoners, the majority of cases that USPC oversees are DC criminals. At the end of FY 2005, more than two-thirds of the nearly 15,000 persons under USPC supervision were persons convicted of breaking laws in the District of Columbia. For the 12-month period ending March 31, 2006, USPC issued almost five times as many warrants for DC Code offenders as it issued for federal offenders (2,013 vs. 412).
 
Organizational Structure
The chairman and commissioners of the USPC carry out numerous duties. They render decisions in National Appeals Board cases; create and maintain a national parole policy; grant or deny parole to all eligible federal and DC prisoners; modify parole conditions; and/or revoke the parole or mandatory/supervised releases of offenders who have violated the conditions of supervision.
 
The Executive Office provides management and advisory services to the commissioners. This includes providing human resources management and training, budget and financial management, contracts and procurement, facilities and property management, telecommunications and security.
 
The Office of Case Operations conducts parole hearings with federal and DC prisoners and parole revocation hearings with parole violators. It also plans and schedules parole hearing dockets, ensures that victims and witnesses are given an opportunity for input into the parole decision-making process and administrates the records management program.
 
The Office of Case Services monitors the progress of prisoners and parolees through pre-release and post-release. It prepares and issues warrants, drafts letters of
reprimand, requests and analyzes preliminary interviews and issues parole certificates.
 
The Office of Information Technology delivers and supports information technology systems and services. It also maintains and reports statistical workload data and management of the quality control functions.
 

The Office of the General Counsel advises commissioners and staff on interpretation of the agency’s enabling statutes. It drafts implementing rules and regulations and assists US Attorney’s Offices in defending the USPC against lawsuits brought by prisoners and parolees. The office also oversees responses to requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act.

more
Where Does the Money Go:
 
Those who are most interested in the work of the Parole Commission are convicted criminals who come under its jurisdiction and the victims of said criminals. The USPC maintains a victims program that offers information on how to participate in parole hearings. While the USPC largely maintains a low-profile, its decisions in some parole cases have garnered widespread attention or controversy. 
 

 

more
Controversies:

 

Sara Jane Moore
In January 2008 the USPC paroled Sara Jane Moore, 77, the one-time attempted assassin of President Gerald Ford. Moore had been serving a life sentence for trying to shoot President Ford outside a San Francisco hotel in 1975. She was denied parole in the mid-1980s but was given another chance at freedom under federal sentencing regulations that call for considering paroling prisoners after serving 30 years if they are not deemed a threat and have behaved well while incarcerated.
 
Moore did escape for four hours from a federal prison in 1979, but a spokesman for the USPC said it appeared nothing in her recent record blocked her release. Moore expressed regret for trying to kill President Ford, who died in December 2006.
One of Ford’s Would-Be Assassins Is Paroled (by Randal C. Archibold, New York Times)
 
Manuel Noriega
In January 2007, the USPC announced that Manuel Noriega, the former dictator of Panama, would be released from his US prison in September. Noriega was the target of Operation Just Cause, the code name for the military invasion of Panama in 1989 that led to his arrest on charges of drug-trafficking. Noriega was tried, convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison in Miami. The Parole Commission determined that after serving almost two-thirds of his sentence, Noriega was eligible for parole.
 
Noriega, however, still remains in his Miami prison. Upon his pending release from US prison, French officials requested the former dictator be extradited to France so he could be tried on charges of money laundering. Noriega’s lawyers have fought the extradition through various appeals, forcing Noriega to remain in prison past the deadline for his release. Noriega has said he wants to return to Panama, which has also requested his extradition in order to try Noriega on charges of murder.
 
Leonard Peltier
In some instances, the USPC has gained attention for what it hasn’t done. The case of Leonard Peltier has drawn ridicule from civil rights activists and supporters of Peltier who insist the Native American man was framed in 1975 for the murder of two FBI agents on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. The Parole Commission has sided with the FBI and its supporters in refusing to grant parole to Peltier, who’s serving two consecutive life sentences at Leavenworth federal prison.
The Martyrdom of Leonard Peltier (by Scott Anderson, Outside)
 
Anthony Kelly
From 2002 to 2004, the USPC found itself facing ridicule along with other government corrections agencies in a series of articles in the Washington Post for allowing a violent felon to go free. The felon, Anthony Kelly, was subsequently arrested on charges of killing three people, raping two women, assaulting a police officer and stealing five guns and five cars—all in the nine months after he was paroled.
 
At the time he was paroled, Kelly had served half of a 10-year sentence for threatening to kill a relative with a handgun. That crime was preceded by convictions of 34 second-degree burglaries, 12 car thefts and 27 thefts from autos. Prison records also had noted that Kelly repeatedly fought with inmates and argued with guards and was described as “extremely troubled” and “a pathological liar.”
 
Yet the USPC granted Kelly parole in December 2001. An investigation by the Washington Post found that the commission failed to catch important details and falsehoods regarding Kelly while reviewing his case. The mistakes included not identifying the phony GED certificate Kelly had submitted or uncovering the millions of dollars in loans Kelly had sought from banks for a nonexistent business. The false GED helped Kelly maintain an “ordinary program achievement” record, a status that changed his score on an agency grid from “deny parole” to getting parole “with highest level of supervision.”
As Lapses In Parole Rose, So Did Killings (by Neely Tucker, Washington Post)

Who Let a Killer Into Erika Smith's World?

(by Colbert I. King, Washington Post)

more
See all 13 comments

Comments

Lynn blasengame 2 years ago
I'm writing my concern for William josegh helbig Jr I would like to know his parole date he says that his date has not changed I got his paper work says he has not received his paper work about his date being changed the letter I got says 11-22-2018 hesays it's still showing 2020 will you please let me know he is in elkton Ohio prison Lisbon Ohio his number is 16660-032 email me at this email thank you
Martin CPL USMC 1993-1997 2 years ago
I am once again writing to ensure that Daryl Antle is never released from prison for the murder of a fellow Marine. I just spent an evening discussing old times with my Platoon Sgt and Juan's name came up. We recalled the days prior to them finding Juan's body. We were drinking a few beers when two of the 4 that where found guilty walked by and we struck up a conversation. I recall asking them if they had found Guerrero yet and where they thought he might have disappeared to. These two with stone cold faces just lied and made up theories about where he might have ran off to. Guerrero was an outstanding Marine and he did not deserve what happened to him. Your son pulling that trigger ended the life of a son, brother and fellow Marine. He should have received the death penalty and I truly hope he stays in prison until he dies. As long as I am alive I will be following this to ensure that he never gets freedom. I am sure it pains you to have to read this as a father I could not imagine your pain. However he did this and he needs to pay the full price..
vickie blasengame 3 years ago
I want to comment on William helbig he should meet the requirements for early release program since there was no actual crime besides here say his number is 16660-032 he was not caught with no drugs or even cooking drugs no violence was committed he should be able to get two points reduction so he can get sooner please look at his record and let him be on early release program he wants to get a job start his life over get a house live his life without drugs and I think he should have that chance
marv 3 years ago
i'm trying to find help for a dear friend of mine. she have this guy who will not move out her house no matter what she does she tried calling the police that doesn't work.he has hit her several times and threaten to do it again if she call the police or his parole officer.she can't even go to the restroom without him going let alone calling and showing up on her job.but what really baffles me is how he can smoke marijauna all day then go report and pass every one of his ua'. will somebody/anybody please help
Charles Alexander 4 years ago
Mr and Mrs Antle I am also a fellow marine that was a close friend to your son Darryl Allen Antle 15126-045 and the murder victim Juan Gurrero . The pain and deception that was felt throughout the platoon has been a great sorrow that still lingers. If you really knew who how great a person Juan was and how this act of violence was .making an appeal on parole should never be considered
D'Juan Tobias 4 years ago
In response to Juanita Antle,about your son Darryl Allen Antle 15126-045. My name is D'Juan Tobias I was a Corporal E-4, in the platoon that your son was in. Your son along with the other Marines that took part in the beating and killing of Lance Corporal Juan Guerrero, 20. Should have gotten the death penalty but since they pleaded guilty the max the military could charge them is with life. They took away a good Marine and a brother of mine I think about him often and I will make sure to continue to follow this and make sure Antle and rest stay where they belong behind bars..And I will be asking others from our platoon do write and do the same
CS 4 years ago
Juanita Antle, Your son sat in my barracks room and feigned concern over the man he shot in the back of the head. His parole should never happen. 18 years later, I still remember the pain and chaos he caused. I still remember the fake anger and hurt they worked so hard to make us all believe. He and his cohorts took us on wild goose chases while looking for THEIR victim at night. They broke a sacred bond with a brother. Darryl may have made changes in his life, but none of those changes will bring back a lost son, brother, or friend. He committed the crime, and should be committed to the time. And you should all be thankful you have a child as the Marines should have sought the death penalty for their crimes.
Sandra Coaxum 5 years ago
Hello, my name is Sandra K. Coaxum, the Mother of Derrick M Williams. I emailed a letter to your office a few weeks ago regarding information provided to my son by his case worker who claimed she got the information from the Commission. I have enclosed a copy of that letter as a reference where Mrs. Alvarez perhaps accidentally entered incorrect information in my son’s record claiming a past history of drug and alcohol abuse. As previously stated Derrick has never abused substances prescription or otherwise in his life; at first Mrs. Alvarez stated that she would remove the information from Derrick’s file. Then Mrs. Alvarez claimed she spoke to Derrick’s Parole Officer, who she claimed was someone named Mr. Miller; at least I believe that is the name she used. Please review the enclosed document, as far as Derrick and I know the erroneous information about alcohol and drug use has finally been removed from his record. In the letter written to your office dated 5 November 2013 Derrick stated that he has arrived at the end of his incarceration and feels that Mrs. Alvarez is trying to accomplish two things: 1. To send him on his way with these special stipulations, though unjust fully imposed (the drug and alcohol abuse program). 2. To drag her feet on his halfway house paperwork denying him the time he desperately needs to coordinate. Derrick has served the past 10 years in prison and is scheduled to be released back into society within the next two to three weeks. When he spoke to his case manager on the same day he received the Notice of Action his case worker Mrs. Alvarez told him that she had contacted his Parole Officer. She claimed Derrick’s parole officer told her he was going to leave the special stipulation in his record concerning the erroneous information about drug and alcohol in case my son decided to turn to drugs. As previously stated this issue has been resolved as far as we know from Mrs. Alvarez, but there is more to this story. When I asked MS Alvarez who my son’s parole officer was she told me that “he would not get a Parole Officer until he gets released”. So how then did Mrs. Alvarez speak to Derrick’s Parole Officer if he doesn’t have one? On 14 November, 2013, Derrick had a telephone conversation with Kia (female friend) and stated his frustration with the lack of assistance he was receiving from Mrs. Alvarez and her current supervisor whose name I do not know at this time. On 12 November, 2013 I sent a priority letter to my son; inside the package was his application for Acoustic Edge (the school that he plans to attend in Houston after his release), which required his signature. The school will be paid for by the Montgomery GI Bill as Derrick was a military service member prior to his incarceration. To expedite the process we also included a self-addressed prestamped envelope for Derrick to mail his signed application directly to Acoustic Edge. The envelope was returned to us with a paper stating that we sent objects (stamped self-addressed envelope) that inmates could not have. This in itself made no sense as Safford has never sent us so much as a rule book pertaining to what is or isn’t permitted to send to our son. On 14 November, 2013 Derrick had a conversation with his case manager Mrs. Brown concerning residency in Houston to attend Acoustic Edge Institute. Basically, he needed to know what the procedures were for him to attend school in Houston if he did not have a residency address there. He asked Mrs. Brown if she could find out this information for him; however she told my son to ask his family to do it. In the minutes prior to her telling my son to have his family find out this information, Mrs. Brown rather rudely told my son he needed to stop acting like nobody’s trying to help him. When Derrick asked her how she knew what he was acting like since he had only talked to her twice, Mrs. Brown said she knew because they read the inmates email and listen to their telephone conversations. While monitoring emails and phone calls are normal and acceptable for the environment at Safford; what’s not acceptable is the manner and tone in which she spoke to my son. It’s degrading, unethical and borders on harassment. At this point Derrick emailed and asked me to call and see if I could get in contact with the individuals at the USC to try to find out who is working on his case and ask them how to move forward. He also asked me to get in touch with the CCM in Houston and find out exactly what it is he has to do in order to get them to approve his relocation to Houston if he doesn’t have a residency address. Derrick also asked me to contact the CCM office to see if they would accept the halfway house as his residency address. On 14 November 2013 I got an email from Derrick stating that the half-way house would not accept him if he did not have an address to be released to. According to him they (whoever they are) told him that if he doesn’t have a residency address in Houston that they will be sending him back to Alaska (home of record). Thankfully, this issue has now been resolved because Acoustic Edge provides housing for their students. The housing consists on an apartment and from what I was told they are pretty nice apartments. I also downloaded information from the United States Department of Justice and emailed those to Derrick on Corrlinks to try to assist him with a smooth transition back into society per Mrs. Brown’s comments to my son. On 14 November, 2013 I spoke to my son on Corrlinks and everything was well with him. My son and I communicate regularly via Corrlinks, especially as he gets closer to being released back into society; however after our correspondence on 14 November all communication stopped and I could not get in touch with my son. Thus having no other means of contacting my son I waited patiently for any communication from him. Finally on 18 November, 2013 I called Safford and spoke to Derrick’s case worker who I now know as Mrs. Alvarez who told me that my son was on lockdown, but she could not discuss why with me because she needed to ask him first. I asked Mrs. Alvarez to obtain my sons permission to speak to me and get back to me, but to this day (11/30/2013) she has not gotten back to me. I received a letter from Derrick a few days later explaining that he was in a place called the SHU because Mrs. Alvarez decided to go back and listened to his phone messages and stated that he threatened her. I have enclosed a copy of the charge sheet or should I say the Incident Report filled out by Mrs. Alvarez which states that on 14 November 2013, while monitoring phone calls she listened to a phone call placed by inmate Williams, Derrick, #38992-048, which he placed on 8 November 2013 at 8:37 p.m. At approximately seven minutes and 15 seconds into the phone call inmate Williams made reference to me, and made the following statement: “Lots of people have a problem with her, she’s messing up people’s lives. Someone is going to get pissed off and it’s not going to be so good for her one of these days, not everybody has restraints, not everybody is going sit back and put up with this crap.” Upon listening to this statement, and knowing inmate William assaultive history, I perceived this statement as being a threat to my safety. While Derrick used a bad choice of words this statement was made out of pure frustration resulting from Mrs. Alvarez ill treatment of him and apparently other inmates. While Mrs. Alvarez speaks of my son’s assaultive past, I am going to speak of his entire incarnation period. Derrick has been in prison for nine years and seven months with no infractions on his record. Why on earth would he wait until he has approximately thirty days before his release to threaten Mrs. Alvarez? This Case worker has harassed and humiliated my son from the day he arrived at Safford by introducing him as the kidnapper to the populace. From day one they have been friction and tension in their relationship, however, my son has maintained his composure looking forward to his release and treated Mrs. Alvarez in a professional manner giving her the respect she deserves. I feel this is a personal vendetta against my son negated by Mrs. Alvarez to antagonize and harass him into doing something stupid designed to keep him in prison. The incident report aforementioned by Mrs. Alvarez was taken out of content, as I read nowhere in it where my son mentioned her by name nor stated he was going to harm her. I find it rather presumptuous of her to know for a fact the he was referring to her. I pray that this matter will be thoroughly investigated and not just based on Mrs. Alvarez assumptions and over- reaction so that justice may prevail and my son will be released back into society as is mandated. If needed, I will take the appropriate actions to see that justice is served and that my son will be released from prison as scheduled and that this farce is brought to light so that no other mother or should I say parent will have to go through this type of heartache with their child. Inmates have rights also and my son rights have been violated and I want justice for him. Respectfully, Mrs. Sandra Coaxum
Martin 5 years ago
Juanita Antle. Your son killed a very close friend of mine. He does not deserve to be released. Juan Guerrero was taken into the jungles of Hawaii and shot in the head buy your son. Guerrero and I had coffee everyday at the motor pool before he checked out his vehicle. We talked about a lot of things he was a great guy and he was taken. I was deployed when your son killed him. We had made plans to hang out when I got back. I truly hope your son never gets out. I have followed this since 1996 and i will never stop.
Juanita Antle 5 years ago
My son Darryl Allen Antle 15126-045 made an appeal on the results of the parole Boards recommendations, sent in August.He never recieved a response. He is now at Federal Medical Center,P.O. Box 14500, Lexington, Ky.40512-4500. He ask that we see if he could get a response sent to his new address. Patiently waiting for his release. Pzrents, Juanita and Dean Antle

Leave a comment

Founded: 1930
Annual Budget: $12 million
Employees: 96
U.S. Parole Commission
Smoot, J. Patricia Wilson
Chairman

J. Patricia “Trish” Wilson Smoot was designated as chairman of the U.S. Parole Commission (USPC) on May 29, 2015. She had served as acting chairman since Jan. 30, 2015, having been appointed to the Commission by President Barack Obama, confirmed by the U.S. Senate on September 16, 2010, and sworn in November 1, 2010.

 

Smoot’s destiny appeared to be sealed by the time she was old enough to learn that numerous members of her family were medical professionals. Her dream was to become a physician just like her father, who had trained at Harvard University. But by the time she enrolled in college in 1981, a sense of squeamishness over the prospect of working in the medical field put a damper on her plans.

 

Smoot earned a B.A. in English and sociology (with a focus on legal studies) from Bucknell University in 1985, and a J.D. from Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America in 1988.

 

Smoot got a job working as a judicial law clerk for Judge Susan R. Holmes Winfield of the Superior Court in the District of Columbia. While Smoot points to her mother—who had been ill most of Smoot’s life—as the source of her strength, it is Winfield whom Smoot credits as her inspiration and source of character-building at that early stage of her career.

 

Smoot next took a job as an associate at a tort defense litigation firm. Her longtime desire to help those in need led her to become a public defender in Prince George's County, Maryland, but she found that the system’s lack of resources hampered her ability to accomplish what she was there to do.

 

When Smoot saw an interview with then-U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on television, in which he said that attorneys who excel at defense work make the best candidates for prosecutors, she applied for one of the 15 positions he had available and landed the job. From June 1994 to November 2002, she worked under Holder as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. In that post, she served as a trial attorney, deputy chief of the misdemeanor section, senior attorney of the sex offense division, and eventually director of professional development to oversee the attorney and staff training programs.

 

In December 2002, Smoot became deputy state's attorney for Prince George's County, overseeing the juvenile and district court divisions, the Domestic Violence Unit, and the Sex Offense and Child Abuse Unit. She concurrently served as an advisor to the state’s attorney, Glenn F. Ivey.

 

Beginning her tenure as a USPC commissioner in November 2010, Smoot worked to establish, in 2012, the USPC Mental Health Docket, which provides non-violent criminal offenders who have mental health disorders with an alternative to incarceration. The program offers mentoring services, job training, and patient treatment opportunities. For several months during her Commission tenure, Smoot also served as USPC acting general counsel.

 

Smoot is married and has two grown children.

-Danny Biederman

 

To Learn More:

 Official Biography

 Meet the New U.S. Parole Commissioner (Law Officer)

more
Fulwood, Isaac
Previous Chairman

Isaac Fulwood Jr. served on the U.S. Parole Commission from November 2004, after he was appointed by President George W. Bush until his retirement at the end of January 2015. President Barack Obama promoted Fulwood to chairman of the commission in May 2009. The Commission is a semi-autonomous agency within the US Department of Justice that decides parole cases involving certain federal and District of Columbia (DC) prisoners.

 
A native of Washington, DC, Fulwood was born on April 28, 1940, at Freedman’s Hospital. The son of a construction worker, he grew up with his parents and eight siblings and was educated in the DC public school system. After graduating from Eastern High School in 1959, Fulwood went to work an apprentice to his uncles, Ted and Bob, at Linens of the Week repairing laundry machines. 
 
He married Ruth Johnson in August 1962, and originally thought about becoming a fireman. But when no job opportunities arose, Fulwood turned to the DC police department and joined the force in 1964.
 
He went on to spend 29 years as a law enforcement officer in DC, including three years as chief of police (1989-1992).
 
After retiring from the police force, he was appointed executive director of the DC mayor’s Youth Initiative Office, putting him in charge of managing, planning and directing developmental programs and activities for children and youth.
 
From 1993 to 1994, Fulwood served as senior marketing representative for Pepsi Cola in Washington, DC, and as a consultant to the Systems Planning Corporation on the use and development of military equipment by civilian law enforcement organizations.
 
He is an adjunct professor at the University of the District of Columbia, where he teaches law enforcement subjects, community policing, and ethics in law enforcement. Additionally, he serves as a special assistant recruiting law enforcement personnel for enrollment at the university.
 
Fulwood has worked as an expert on security issues for the law office of Gilbert and Kiernan as well as on the board of directors for 16 organizations.
 
Fulwood and his wife have a son, Gary, and a daughter, Angela.
 
Chairman Isaac Fulwood Jr. (U.S. Department of Justice)
Interview with Isaac Fulwood, Jr. (by Pat Taffe Driscoll, Capitol Hill History Project)
Biography (ConnectDC2000)
more