U.S.S.G. § 5J1.1

Relief from Disability Pertaining to Convicted Persons Prohibited from Holding Certain Positions

Read at: USSCussc.gov CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§5J1.1.      Relief from Disability Pertaining to Convicted Persons Prohibited from Holding Certain Positions (Policy Statement)

A collateral consequence of conviction of certain crimes described in 29 U.S.C. §§ 504 and 1111 is the prohibition of convicted persons from service and employment with labor unions, employer associations, employee pension and welfare benefit plans, and as labor relations consultants in the private sector.  A convicted person's prohibited service or employment in such capacities without having been granted one of the following three statutory procedures of administrative or judicial relief is subject to criminal prosecution.  First, a disqualified person whose citizenship rights have been fully restored to him or her in the jurisdiction of conviction, following the revocation of such rights as a result of the disqualifying conviction, is relieved of the disability.  Second, a disqualified person convicted after October 12, 1984, may petition the sentencing court to reduce the statutory length of disability (thirteen years after date of sentencing or release from imprisonment, whichever is later) to a lesser period (not less than three years after date of conviction or release from imprisonment, whichever is later).  Third, a disqualified person may petition either the United States Parole Commission or a United States District Court judge to exempt his or her service or employment in a particular prohibited capacity pursuant to the procedures set forth in 29 U.S.C. §§ 504(a)(B) and 1111(a)(B).  In the case of a person convicted of a disqualifying crime committed before November 1, 1987, the United States Parole Commission will continue to process such exemption applications. 

In the case of a person convicted of a disqualifying crime committed on or after November 1, 1987, however, a petition for exemption from disability must be directed to a United States District Court.  If the petitioner was convicted of a disqualifying federal offense, the petition is directed to the sentencing judge.  If the petitioner was convicted of a disqualifying state or local offense, the petition is directed to the United States District Court for the district in which the offense was committed.  In such cases, relief shall not be given to aid rehabilitation, but may be granted only following a clear demonstration by the convicted person that he or she has been rehabilitated since commission of the disqualifying crime and can therefore be trusted not to endanger the organization in the position for which he or she seeks relief from disability.

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective June 15, 1988 (amendment 56).

 

PART K – ASSISTANCE TO AUTHORITIES

Historical Note:  Effective November 1, 1987.  Amended effective November 1, 2025 (amendment 836). The heading to Part K, Subpart 1 (Substantial Assistance to Authorities), effective November 1, 1987, was deleted due to the change to the heading to Part K (Departures) and the deletion of Part K, Subparts 2 (Other Grounds for Departure) and 3 (Early Disposition Programs) effective November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).


 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2021 · leading case: United States v. Cullison, 422 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.D.C. 2006).
United States v. Cullison, 422 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.D.C. 2006). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the Government points to the Sentencing Guideline’s policy regarding exemptions from § 504(a), which states that “relief shall not be given to aid rehabilitation, but may be granted only following a clear demonstration by the convicted person that he or she has been…”
Carollo v. Herman, 84 F. Supp. 2d 374 (E.D.N.Y 2000). · cites it 2× “U.S.S.G. § 5J1.1 (1999). Prior to declaring an individual exempt from the § 504 prohibition, the district court must hold a hearing and provide notice to the Secretary of Labor and to state and federal prosecutors in the relevant geographic area.”
United States v. Tolbert (D.D.C. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 504 (a); U.S.S.G. § 5J1.1. II. Factors for this Court to Consider In considering requests for reduction, courts generally analyze the following three factors (which were the focus of a Department of Labor investigation in this case): “(i) the character and gravity of the…”
United States v. Tolbert (D.D.C. 2020). “§ 504 (a), U.S.S. G. §5J1.1. In considering requests for reduction, courts generally analyze the following three factors (which were the focus of a Department of Labor investigation in this case): “(i) the character and gravity of the offense and its nexus to union activities;…”
United States v. Lipsky, 221 F. Supp. 3d 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “U.S.S.G. § 5J1.1 (2016). Therefore, in evaluating a motion under § 504(a), “courts must analyze whether the petitioner has been fully rehabilitated, and whether it would be contrary to the purposes of the LMRDA, considering the nature and gravity of the petitioner’s crime(s),…”
Hatch v. United States Dep't of Labor (D. Mass. 2021). “U.S.S.G. § 5J1.1 (2021). Accordingly, the burden is on the petitioner to clearly demonstrate rehabilitation warranting an exemption.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.