| Going To Federal Prison? |
| ARE YOU SCARED ANGRY and CONFUSED? |
| Does Your Lawyer Lack The Answers You Need? |
| Want To Reduce Your Time In Custody? |
| Is Your Loved One In Custody, and Getting Their Rights VIOLATED by the B.O.P.? |
| I CAN HELP! |
| CALL LARRY LEVINE NOW |
| By taking advantage of Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) RDAP Policies, and 18 U.S.C. 3621 loopholes, I can help those being sentenced to Federal Prison, "qualify" to receive EXTRA TIME off their sentence; |
| See Below for Additional Services |
| EVEN WITH NO EVIDENCE OF DRUG OR ALCOHOL ABUSE IN THEIR PROBATION SENTENCING REPORT (PSR) FOR A FREE CONSULTATION CALL ME NOW! |
| WELCOME |
By viewing FEDTIME 101 you will find a detailed syllabus, of my unique "SURVIVAL PROGRAM" on Federal Prison life, that I designed and put together while serving time behind prison walls. The FEDTIME 101 program provides direct one-on-one counseling and guidance, to ensure you have a complete understanding of the issues lying ahead of you and your family. Furthermore, my assistance continues after you're incarcerated, to address and/ or rectify any concerns you family may have. My commitment is to provide the most accurate, up-to-date information, addressing all key issues concerning BOP Policy, pre- and post-custody policy, and what really happens when goes inside. |
| In the past, you may have seen other firms offering similar programs of their own. On the surface, they may all seem the same, but the truth is...they're NOT! Those programs are being run by former inmates who've served a "YEAR and A DAY in camps, well meaning paralegals, and former biased Prison Staff members telling you what should happen, not what actually happens. My program's extensive, based on reality, and the personal hands on experience of surviving at all security levels of the Federal Prison System. |
| Levine's Federal Custody Resume' |
MDC Los Angeles....................................High 1998-2000 California City Correctional Center.......High 2000 FCI Phoenix........................................Medium 2000 FCI Safford AZ...........................................Low 2000-2003 Lompoc CA, USP Camp....................Minimum 2003-2005 Nellis NV, Federal PrisonCamp......Minimum 2005 FCI La Tuna (El Paso) TX..........................Low 2005-2006 FTC Oklahoma City..................................High 2006 FCI Taft CA, Camp............................Minimum 2006 Vinewood Halfway House, CA....Community 2006-2007 MDC Los Angeles...................................High 2007 |
| In 1998, I was a first-time offender, and in the same agonizing position you might face today. A Judge slammed down his gavel, and sent me off to Federal Prison. I was scared, angry, and confused; and totally overwhelmed by a Criminal Justice System I knew little about. I had no idea what expect, no one to turn to, and was on my own. For the next eight-years, I worked my way down in custody through the BOP, and was shuttled off between nine, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, and MINIMUM security institutions. In my travels, I saw people, regular people just like you and me, being given the run-around, and being fed misinformation by predatory inmates and uncaring BOP Staff. The BOP, like all federal bureaucracies, operates by a complex set of rules called "Program Statements." They're designed to ensure that the BOP runs like a well-oiled-machine. The only problem is, BOP Staff routinely fail to follow them, and makeup rules at whim...creating additional chaos and confusion in inmates' lives. Over the years, as I travelled from one dysfunctional prison to another, I opened my eyes, taught myself the "SYSTEM", and learned how to fight back and work within the rules. Once I saw what was really going on, I grew tired of watching staff violate inmates' rights, and began helping them deal with custody and staff related issues. (See InmateTestimonials) |
In 2005 as my sentence winded down, LOMPOC USP CAMP, anxious to get rid of me, sent me to the fabled CLUB FED at Nellis Federal Prison Camp outside sunny Las Vegas. Nellis was packed with hundreds of White-Collar first-time offenders, and was the only Federal Prison many of them had been to. I too was a White-Collar offender, but my situation was unique, in that in addition to a securities conviction...I was also serving a concurrent ten year sentence for Federal Narcotics Trafficking. In August, 2005, the BOP announced that due to budget cuts, they were closing Nellis and several other minimum security prison camps. The former campers were scattered to the wind. I, along with 100 other Nellis inmates, were put on buses, chained and shackled, and sent to F.C.I. La Tuna, a Low Security prison outside El Paso, Texas. The only thing low about La Tuna is its name. It's in a world of its own; replete with warring gang members, bank robbers, crack dealers, illegal aliens, violent offenders, and a psychotic staff to boot. The Nellis inmates were shell-shocked into the real world of federal prison. Gone were their cushy days of being in a camp. In reality, many White-Collar inmates never end up in camps, and I've seen them at every custody level. Despite being minimum security inmates, the BOP refused to transfer us back to camps, told us we were stuck there, and if we didn't like it suggested in typical BOP fashion we sue them over it. The Nellis inmates were completely unprepared, and unfortunately lacked the experience of being in higher custody and knowing how to deal with the problems and prison politics they were facing. The whole thing made me angry...so I filed a Class Action Habeas Corpus 28 U.S.C. 2241 lawsuit, and sued the BOP on behalf of everyone. (See Media Articles) At that point, I realized there were potentially thousands of inmates whose rights were being violated and could use my help. It was then I decided to utilize my years of experience and expertise, and help others coming into Federal Prison prepare themselves for the harsh realities of prison life. |
| Dear Friend: My name is Larry Levine, and I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce a revolutionary new program tailored specifically for those being sentenced to enter the Federal Prison System. |
| MY STORY - 10 Years In The B.O.P. |
| ***FEDERAL COURT OPINIONS*** |
| If Your Family Member or Loved One's Being Harassed by BOP STAFF or Being Denied: |
| * RDAP Placement * Telephone Calls * Visits * Medical Care * Furloughs * Transfers * Proper Security Classification * Good Time Credit * Halfway House Placement * A Lower Bunk * Religious Diet |
| CALL ME RIGHT NOW FOR IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE 888.558.2151 |
| Prison Survival Crash Course Course Delaying Collection of Fines Delaying Collection of Restitution Presidential Pardons Voting Rights Restoral Making Sure Your PSI/PSR is Accurate Medical-Substance Abuse Documentation Education-Financial PSR Documentation PSR Probation Sentencing Interviews Challenging Your PSR Restitution Judicial Prison Recommendations Self Surrender Requests Getting Your Affairs In Order When & Where to Report Sentence Appeal Rights Post Conviction Relief |
| Respondent Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in a patrol car before officers searched his car and found cocaine in a jacket pocket. The Arizona trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence, and he was convicted of drug offenses. Reversing, the State Supreme Court distinguished New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454 —which held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle and any containers therein as a contemporaneous incident of a recent occupant’s lawful arrest—on the ground that it concerned the scope of a search incident to arrest but did not answer the question whether officers may conduct such a search once the scene has been secured. Because Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752 , requires that a search incident to arrest be justified by either the interest in officer safety or the interest in preserving evidence and the circumstances of Gant’s arrest implicated neither of those interests, the State Supreme Court found the search unreasonable. Held: Police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. Pp. 5–18. (a) Warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable,” “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 . The exception for a search incident to a lawful arrest applies only to “the area from within which [an arrestee] might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Chimel, 395 U. S., at 763. This Court applied that exception to the automobile context in Belton, the holding of which rested in large part on the assumption that articles inside a vehicle’s passenger compartment are “generally … within ‘the area into which an arrestee might reach.’ ” 453 U. S., at 460. Pp. 5–8. (b) This Court rejects a broad reading of Belton that would permit a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest even if there were no possibility the arrestee could gain access to the vehicle at the time of the search. The safety and evidentiary justifications underlying Chimel’s exception authorize a vehicle search only when there is a reasonable possibility of such access. Although it does not follow from Chimel, circumstances unique to the automobile context also justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” Thornton v. United States, 541 U. S. 615 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Neither Chimel’s reaching-distancerule nor Thornton’s allowance for evidentiary searches authorized the search in this case. In contrast to Belton, which involved a single officer confronted with four unsecured arrestees, five officers handcuffed and secured Gant and the two other suspects in separate patrol cars before the search began. Gant clearly could not have accessed his car at the time of the search. An evidentiary basis for the search was also lacking. Belton and Thornton were both arrested for drug offenses, but Gant was arrested for driving with a suspended license—an offense for which police could not reasonably expect to find evidence in Gant’s car. Cf. Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U. S. 113 . The search in this case was therefore unreasonable. Pp. 8–11. (c) This Court is unpersuaded by the State’s argument that its expansive reading of Belton correctly balances law enforcement interests with an arrestee’s limited privacy interest in his vehicle. The State seriously undervalues the privacy interests at stake, and it exaggerates both the clarity provided by a broad reading of Belton and its importance to law enforcement interests. A narrow reading of Belton and Thornton,together with this Court’s other Fourth Amendment decisions, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 103 , and United States v. Ross, 456 U. S. 798 , permit an officer to search a vehicle when safety or evidentiary concerns demand. Pp. 11–14. (d) Stare decisis does not require adherence to a broad reading of Belton. The experience of the 28 years since Belton has shown that the generalization underpinning the broad reading of that decision is unfounded, and blind adherence to its faulty assumption would authorize myriad unconstitutional searches. Pp. 15–18. 216 Ariz. 1, 162 P. 3d 640, affirmed. Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined, and in which Breyer, J., joined except as to Part II–E. |
| Arizona v. Gant was a 2009 appeal in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by the arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. |
| IMPORTANT U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING ARIZONA v. GANT 07-542 Argued October 7, 2008—Decided April 21, 2009 |
| BUREAU OF PRISONS REGIONAL OFFICES |
| U.S. Sentencing Guideline Chart |
| Site Search |
| Visit our sister company at www.wallstreetprisonconsultants.com |
| I Helped 100's During My 10 Years On The Inside 1998-2007 See "Inmate Testimonials" Now I Can Help YOU TOO! |
| American Prison Consultants "Federal Prison Consultants & RDAP Sentence Reduction Experts" |
| Larry Levine News Media Stories |
| CALIFORNIA FELON PARTY |
| CALIFORNIA FELON PARTY |
| CALIFORNIA FELON PARTY |
| CALIFORNIA FELON PARTY |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
1st Circuit 2nd Circuit 3rd Circuit 4th Circuit 5th Circuit 6th Circuit 7th Circuit 8th Circuit 9th Circuit 10th Circuit 11th Circuit D.C. Circuit |
| Voice: 888.558.2151 Fax: 213.226.4631 |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Pre Federal Bureau Of Prisons Incarceration Consulting Services |
| THE DEATH OF CLUB FED |
| I look forward to helping you! |
Larry Levine, Founder
American Prison Consultants
American Prison Consultants
| U.S. Federal Prison Population Chart |
CENTRAL OFFICE 320 1st STREET, NW WASHINGTON DC, 20534 (202) 307-3198 NORTH CENTRAL 400 STATE AVENUE, SUITE 800 KANSAS CITY KS, 66101 (913) 621-3939 SOUTH CENTRAL 4211 CEDAR SPRINGS RD DALLAS TX, 75219 (214) 224-3389 WESTERN 7950 DUBLIN BLVD, 3RD FL DUBLIN CA, 94568 (925) 803-4700 MID-ATLANTIC 302 SENTINEL DR. # 200 ANNAPOLIS JUNCT MD, 20701 (301) 317-3100 NORTHEAST 2ND & CHESNUT ST., PHILADELPHIA PA, 19106 (215) 521-7301 SOUTHEAST 3800 CAMP CRK PK SW/BDG 2000 ATLANTA GA, 30331 (678) 686-1200 |
| Visit our sister company at www.wallstreetprisonconsultants.com |
| ****** |
| ****** |
| Larry Levine Network News Appearances |
