18 U.S.C. § 3631

Duties of the Attorney General

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In General.—The Attorney General shall carry out this subchapter in consultation with—(1) the Director of the Bureau of Prisons;(2) the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts;(3) the Director of the Office of Probation and Pretrial Services;(4) the Director of the National Institute of Justice;(5) the Director of the National Institute of Corrections; and(6) the Independent Review Committee authorized by the First Step Act of 2018 11 So in original. Probably should be followed by a period.(b)Duties.—The Attorney General shall—(1) conduct a review of the existing prisoner risk and needs assessment systems in operation on the date of enactment of this subchapter;(2) develop recommendations regarding evidence-based recidivism reduction programs and productive activities in accordance with section 3633;(3) conduct ongoing research and data analysis on—(A) evidence-based recidivism reduction programs relating to the use of prisoner risk and needs assessment tools;(B) the most effective and efficient uses of such programs;(C) which evidence-based recidivism reduction programs are the most effective at reducing recidivism, and the type, amount, and intensity of programming that most effectively reduces the risk of recidivism; and(D) products purchased by Federal agencies that are manufactured overseas and could be manufactured by prisoners participating in a prison work program without reducing job opportunities for other workers in the United States;(4) on an annual basis, review, validate, and release publicly on the Department of Justice website the risk and needs assessment system, which review shall include—(A) any subsequent changes to the risk and needs assessment system made after the date of enactment of this subchapter;(B) the recommendations developed under paragraph (2), using the research conducted under paragraph (3);(C) an evaluation to ensure that the risk and needs assessment system bases the assessment of each prisoner’s risk of recidivism on indicators of progress and of regression that are dynamic and that can reasonably be expected to change while in prison;(D) statistical validation of any tools that the risk and needs assessment system uses; and(E) an evaluation of the rates of recidivism among similarly classified prisoners to identify any unwarranted disparities, including disparities among similarly classified prisoners of different demographic groups, in such rates;(5) make any revisions or updates to the risk and needs assessment system that the Attorney General determines appropriate pursuant to the review under paragraph (4), including updates to ensure that any disparities identified in paragraph (4)(E) are reduced to the greatest extent possible; and(6) report to Congress in accordance with section 3634.(Added Pub. L. 115–391, title I, § 101(a), Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5195.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The First Step Act of 2018, referred to in subsec. (a)(6), is Pub. L. 115–391, Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5194. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2018 Amendment note under section 1 of this title and Tables.

The date of enactment of this subchapter, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), (4)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 115–391, which was approved Dec. 21, 2018.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesIndependent Review Committee

Pub. L. 115–391, title I, § 107, Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5215, provided that:“(a)In General.—The Attorney General shall consult with an Independent Review Committee in carrying out the Attorney General’s duties under sections 3631(b), 3632 and 3633 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 101(a) of this Act.“(b)Formation of Independent Review Committee.—The National Institute of Justice shall select a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization with expertise in the study and development of risk and needs assessment tools to host the Independent Review Committee. The Independent Review Committee shall be established not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 21, 2018].“(c)Appointment of Independent Review Committee.—The organization selected by the National Institute of Justice shall appoint not fewer than 6 members to the Independent Review Committee.“(d)Composition of the Independent Review Committee.—The members of the Independent Review Committee shall all have expertise in risk and needs assessment systems and shall include—“(1) 2 individuals who have published peer-reviewed scholarship about risk and needs assessments in both corrections and community settings;“(2) 2 corrections practitioners who have developed and implemented a risk assessment tool in a corrections system or in a community supervision setting, including 1 with prior experience working within the Bureau of Prisons; and“(3) 1 individual with expertise in assessing risk assessment implementation.“(e)Duties of the Independent Review Committee.—The Independent Review Committee shall assist the Attorney General in carrying out the Attorney General’s duties under sections 3631(b), 3632 and 3633 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 101(a) of this Act, including by assisting in—“(1) conducting a review of the existing prisoner risk and needs assessment systems in operation on the date of enactment of this Act;“(2) developing recommendations regarding evidence-based recidivism reduction programs and productive activities;“(3) conducting research and data analysis on—“(A) evidence-based recidivism reduction programs relating to the use of prisoner risk and needs assessment tools;“(B) the most effective and efficient uses of such programs; and“(C) which evidence-based recidivism reduction programs are the most effective at reducing recidivism, and the type, amount, and intensity of programming that most effectively reduces the risk of recidivism; and“(4) reviewing and validating the risk and needs assessment system.“(f)Bureau of Prisons Cooperation.—The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall assist the Independent Review Committee in performing the Committee’s duties and promptly respond to requests from the Committee for access to Bureau of Prisons facilities, personnel, and information.“(g)Report.—Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Independent Review Committee shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report that includes—“(1) a list of all offenses of conviction for which prisoners were ineligible to receive time credits under section 3632(d)(4)(D) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 101(a) of this Act, and for each offense the number of prisoners excluded, including demographic percentages by age, race, and sex;“(2) the criminal history categories of prisoners ineligible to receive time credits under section 3632(d)(4)(D) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 101(a) of this Act, and for each category the number of prisoners excluded, including demographic percentages by age, race, and sex;“(3) the number of prisoners ineligible to apply time credits under section 3632(d)(4)(D) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 101(a) of this Act, who do not participate in recidivism reduction programming or productive activities, including the demographic percentages by age, race, and sex;“(4) any recommendations for modifications to section 3632(d)(4)(D) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 101(a) of this Act, and any other recommendations regarding recidivism reduction.“(h)Termination.—The Independent Review Committee shall terminate on the date that is 2 years after the date on which the risk and needs assessment system authorized by sections 3632 and 3633 of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 101(a) of this Act, is released.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 36 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Wiegand v. United States, 70 F. App'x 312 (6th Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wiegand v. United States, 70 F. App'x 312 (6th Cir. 2003). “In 1991, a jury convicted Wiegand of setting fire to a dwelling in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3631 (a) (count 1), using fire to commit a felony in violation of 18 U.”

Delorenzo v. Nunley (W.D. Va. 2025). · cites it 3× “18 U.S.C. § 3631 (a). 2 Evidence-based means based upon actuarial (mathematical) analysis of a large dataset to find statistical correlations between certain traits and outcomes.”

Swan v. Rokosky (D. Maryland 2025). · cites it 2× “es among similarly classified prisoners of different demographic groups, in such rates; (5) make any revisions or updates to the risk and needs assessment system that the Attorney General determines appropriate pursuant to the review under paragraph (4), including updates to…”

Williams v. Warden Rokosky (D. Maryland 2025). · cites it 2× “es among similarly classified prisoners of different demographic groups, in such rates; (5) make any revisions or updates to the risk and needs assessment system that the Attorney General determines appropriate pursuant to the review under paragraph (4), including updates to…”

Carter (D.S.D. 2026). · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 3631 (b) provides that “[nJotwithstanding any other provision of law, a designation of a place of imprisonment under this subsection is not reviewable by any court.”

Eduardo Gabriel Guerrero-Martinez v. Warden (C.D. Cal. 2024). “He asks the Court to “ORDER the BOP to apply the earned credits in accordance with the First Step Act, and to further calculate the release date to reflect the proper application of these earned time credits.” Id. at 3 . However, as noted above, BOP records suggest that…”

(HC) Jacobo-Arizaga v. Thompson (E.D. Cal. 2021). “18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 (b), 3632(a). 21 The Act required that the System provide certain “incentives and rewards” for prisoners to 22 participate in EBRR programs.”

(HC) Fair v. Thompson (E.D. Cal. 2022). “18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 (b), 3632(a). 4 The Act required that the System provide certain “incentives and rewards” for prisoners to 5 participate in EBRR programs.”

(HC) Chaidez-Alvarez v. Thompson (E.D. Cal. 2022). “18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 (b), 3632(a). 18 The Act required that the System provide certain “incentives and rewards” for prisoners to 19 participate in EBRR programs.”

(HC) Galaz v. Thompson (E.D. Cal. 2023). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3631 (a)-(b). Thereafter, within 210 days of the FSA’s 4 enactment,6 the Attorney General was to develop and publicly release a risk and needs assessment 5 system that would be used to determine the risk of recidivism for each prisoner, as well as the 6 type and…”

(HC) Muniz v. Thompson (E.D. Cal. 2023). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3631 (a)-(b). Thereafter, within 210 days of the FSA’s 5 enactment,6 the Attorney General was to develop and publicly release a risk and needs assessment 6 system that would be used to determine the risk of recidivism for each prisoner, as well as the 7 type and…”

(HC) Lam v. Thompson (E.D. Cal. 2023). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3631 (a)-(b). Thereafter, within 210 days of the FSA’s 3 enactment,7 the Attorney General was to develop and publicly release a risk and needs assessment 4 system that would be used to determine the risk of recidivism for each prisoner, as well as the 5 type and…”

(HC) Delacruz v. Thompson (E.D. Cal. 2023). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3631 (a)-(b). Thereafter, within 210 days of the FSA’s 3 enactment,6 the Attorney General was to develop and publicly release a risk and needs assessment 4 system that would be used to determine the risk of recidivism for each prisoner, as well as the 5 type and…”

(HC) Mendoza v. Thompson (E.D. Cal. 2023). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3631 (a)-(b). Thereafter, within 210 days of the FSA’s 8 enactment,6 the Attorney General was to develop and publicly release a risk and needs assessment 9 system that would be used to determine the risk of recidivism for each prisoner, as well as the 10 type and…”

Peterson v. Hinds (N.D. Cal. 2022). “Peterson relies on 18 U.S.C. § 3631 (a), which states that “[t]he Attorney General shall 2 carry out this subchapter in consultation with” other agencies.”

Gelagotis v. Boncher (D. Mass. 2023). “§ 2241 (“section 2241”), alleges that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) did not properly calculate his earned time credits (“FSA credits”) under the First Step Act (“FSA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 - 3635, and the Second Chance Act, 18 U.”

Henny v. United States of Am. (D. Minnesota 2023). “Henny objects to the R&R’s conclusion that her claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 - 3635 fail because these statutes do not allow for private enforcement of their provisions.”

Scott v. United States (E.D. Mo. 2020). “I, to be codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3631 , et seq. Section 403(b) of the Act provides that the amendments concerning Section 924(c)’s penalty provisions “apply to any offense that was committed before the date of enactment of this Act, if a sentence for the offense has not been…”

Hanson v. Hendrix (D. Or. 2022). “, 18 U.S.C. § 3631 . Petitioner is currently serving a 110-month sentence for conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud and has a projected release date of April 6, 2025.”

Ramos-Sanchez v. Warden FCC Allenwood (M.D. Penn. 2021). “5194 (2018) (codified in relevant part at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631–3635). (Doc. 1.) Ramos-Sanchez additionally filed a brief in support of his petition, several exhibits, and a declaration from himself.”

Clinkenbeard v. King (D. Minnesota 2024). “18 U.S.C. § 3631 et seq. The FSA allows certain inmates to earn “time credits” to reduce their sentences and leave prison early.”

Stevens v. Jacquez (D. Or. 2024). “See, 18 U.S.C. § 3631 . Specifically, the Attorney General must implement “a risk and needs assessment system” that will: (1) determine the recidivism risk of each prisoner as part of the intake process, and classify each prisoner as having minimum, low, medium, or high risk for…”

Mohammed v. Stover (D. Conn. 2024). “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 (b)(2), (3); id. 2 Although not raised by Petitioner, it appears that, even if the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply, the voluntary cessation doctrine would.”

Burchard v. Garrett (E.D. Ark. 2024). “§ 3632 (a); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3631 . The FSA also included the creation of an evidence-based recidivism reduction program that incentivizes prisoners to participate in and complete programs and productive activities by allowing certain prisoners to earn “10 days of time…”

(HC) Renteria v. Warden, FCI- Herlong (E.D. Cal. 2025). ““PATTERN” Assessment 9 Via the First Step Act (FSA) of 2018, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 et seq., a system was created 10 that, under certain circumstances, allows inmates to earn sentence credit by completing evidence- 11 based recidivism reduction programs (“EBRRs”) or productive…”

Musgraves v. Helaire (E.D. Ark. 2025). “FACTS Pursuant to an amended judgment entered December 7, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Mr.”

Cano v. Jacquez (D. Or. 2025). “18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 , 3632(a). In response, BOP developed the Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Eliminated Risk and Needs (“PATTERN”), which BOP (not a judge at sentencing) employs during the intake process.”

Adams v. United States (N.D. Ala. 2025). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3631 . And safety valve relief is for certain defendants convicted of controlled substance offenses, see 18 U.”

Dempster v. FCI Sheridan (D. Or. 2025). “18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 , 3632(a). In order to satisfy that requirement, the BOP developed its PATTERN scoring system.”

Tinsley v. Carter (D. Maryland 2025). “es among similarly classified prisoners of different demographic groups, in such rates; (5) make any revisions or updates to the risk and needs assessment system that the Attorney General determines appropriate pursuant to the review under paragraph (4), including updates to…”

Anuebunwa (D. Conn. 2025). “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 (b)(2), (3); id. §§ 3633(a)(5)(A), (C) (“[T]he Attorney General shall .”

Miner (D. Ariz. 2025). “Petitioner raises three grounds for 25 relief: 26 (1) the “System” developed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 and 3621 for “[First Step Act] risk and 27 needs assessment does not comply with the requirements of the statute 28 because it uses…”

Chibundu Anuebunwa v. Warden, FCI Danbury (D. Conn. 2025). “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 (b)(2), (3); id. §§ 3633(a)(5)(A), (C) (“[T]he Attorney General shall .”

Hernandez (D. Or. 2026). “18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 , 3632(a). In order to satisfy that requirement, the BOP developed its Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risks and Needs (“PATTERN”) scoring system.”

D’arius Akim Jackson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D. Or. 2026). “18 U.S.C. §§ 3631 , 3632(a). To satisfy that requirement, the BOP developed its Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risks and Needs (“PATTERN”) scoring system.”

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.