The Myles Away From Home Project


Pictured: Myles Coker

Our Story

Myles Away From Home, Inc. was founded by the family of Myles Coker. In 1991 Myles Coker was arrested and later sentenced to life in prison for a non-violent, first offense. For the next 23 years Myles Coker was incarcerated and separated from his family. In 2005 his sons, and Co-Founders of Myles Away From Home, Inc. began working on behalf of their father. They built relationships with countless lawyers and legal professionals in the New York and New Jersey area. Finally in 2013, after 23 years, Myles Coker was granted "immediate release" at his resentencing hearing. Over the following years, the Cokers would continue to speak with and inspire others to join them in their journey to find other families in similar situations. The Cokers have now made it their mission to seek out more federal and state offenders with the same strength of character as Myles and do everything possible to reunite them with their families.

Myles Away From Home, Inc. was founded by the family of Myles Coker. In 1991 Myles Coker was arrested and later sentenced to life in prison for a non-violent, first offense. For the next 23 years Myles Coker was incarcerated and separated from his family. In 2005 his sons, and Co-Founders of Myles Away From Home, Inc. began working on behalf of their father. They built relationships with countless lawyers and legal professionals in the New York and New Jersey area. Finally in 2013, after 23 years, Myles Coker was granted "immediate release" at his resentencing hearing. Over the following years, the Cokers would continue to speak with and inspire others to join them in their journey to find other families in similar situations. The Cokers have now made it their mission to seek out more federal and state offenders with the same strength of character as Myles and do everything possible to reunite them with their families.

"Though his sentence must have reflected the climate of the public at the time, his release will be a statement of fairness and justice, and will reflect the climate of the public today."
Marlene Lynch at the re-sentencing trial of Myles Coker
...

Except for the most violent offenders, it is nearly impossible, and almost certainly unwise, to make final decisions, or, at least, good final decisions, about how long someone should spend in prison at the beginning of a term of incarceration, particularly for individuals sentenced to decades or even life behind bars. But that is exactly how the federal criminal justice system works. Sentences are final when imposed. Parole does not exist. And virtually no means exists for taking a “second look” at the sentences imposed on federal offenders, even decades later when continued imprisonment (for at least some offenders) can no longer reasonably be justified on moral or utilitarian grounds.

The Myles Coker Success Story

Myles Coker & Ralph Rivera

Represented by Harlan Protass

Myles Coker and Ralph Rivera were arrested on August 1, 1991 and charged pursuant to a criminal complaint with (and later indicted and convicted at trial for) participating in a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to sell more than 500 kilograms of heroin in the Bronx and Manhattan. The Honorable Shirley Wohl Kram of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that Mr. Coker’s Guidelines offense level was 44 based upon: (1) a base offense level of 42; and (2) an increase of 2 offense levels based on the recovery of a weapon during a search of his apartment. That combination indicated a Guidelines range of life imprisonment (at a time when the Guidelines were mandatory). Judge Kram likewise determined that Mr. Rivera’s Guidelines offense level was 46 based upon: (1) a base offense level of 42; and (2) an increase of 4 offense levels based on his leadership role in the conspiracy of which he was convicted. That combination also indicated a Guidelines range of life imprisonment (at a time when the Guidelines were mandatory). Thus, on October 12, 1994 Judge Kram sentenced both Mr. Coker and Mr. Rivera to life without parole. Throughout all of their appeals and post-conviction litigation, neither Mr. Coker nor Mr. Rivera (nor any of their attorneys) noticed that the Sentencing Commission reduced the base offense level for narcotics offenses from 42 to 38 after they were sentenced and then made that change retroactive a year later. More particularly, Amendment 505 to the Guidelines became effective on November 1, 1994. It lowered the maximum base offense level for narcotics offenses under the Guidelines from 42 to 38. The Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 505 because it “determined that the extension of the Drug Quantity Table above level 38 for quantity is not required to ensure adequate punishment.” When first adopted, Amendment 505 was not among the amendments that the Sentencing Commission determined should be applied retroactively. On November 1, 1995, however, the Sentencing Commission promulgated Amendment 536, which added Amendment 505 to the list of amendments that should be applied retroactively.

Upon discovery of that omission, Mr. Protass filed motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) seeking sentence reductions based on: (1) Mr. Coker’s revised Guidelines range of 292 to 365 months; and (2) Mr. Rivera’s revised Guidelines range of 360 months to life. CHe presented the government with (among other things) evidence on behalf of both Mr. Coker and Mr. Rivera of their respective remorse, acceptance of responsibility and rehabilitation in the form of letters from current BOP officials, letters from family and friends who had known both for decades, and their respective BOP Inmate Skills Development Report (which evidenced the absence of any disciplinary violations of note). The government agreed that Mr. Coker and Mr. Rivera qualified for resentencing. It took no position on the question of whether they should be resentenced or the sentence he should receive if resentenced. Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (to whom their cases were assigned after Judge Kram died) granted Mr. Coker’s motion. On August 29, 2013 she resentenced him to 292 months imprisonment (the bottom end of his revised Guidelines range and the shortest sentence authorized by law). Because of the amount of time he had already served and his newfound eligibility for “good time” credit because he had been resentenced to a term of years (rather than life), he qualified for immediate release. Mr. Coker was released from USP Lewisburg the very next day after 22+ years in prison. Likewise, Chief Judge Preska granted Mr. Rivera’s motion. On September __, 2015 she resentenced him to 360 months imprisonment (the bottom end of his revised Guidelines range and the shortest sentence authorized by law). Because of the amount of time he had already served and his newfound eligibility for “good time” credit because he had been resentenced to a term of years (rather than life), Mr. Rivera is scheduled to be released on September 19, 2017 after approximately 26 years in prison.

The Philosophical Basis for the Federal Criminal Justice System Today
A Short History Lesson
Progressive criminal justice reformers in the late 1880s championed a move away from capital and corporal punishment toward rehabilitation and the use of penitentiaries as the primary form of punishment. As that rehabilitative ideal grew, trial judges in federal and state systems were afforded nearly unfettered discretion to impose virtually any sentence from within wide statutory ranges. Parole officers, in turn, exercised similar discretion concerning release dates. They were expected to regularly review offenders’ custodial behavior to determine if and when they should be released. All imprisoned offenders had regular parole hearings at which their sentences were subject to review and reconsideration. This system was designed to individualize punishment and tailor sentences to the rehabilitative process – or, as the U.S. Supreme Court put it, to effectuate the “prevalent modern philosophy of penology that the punishment should fit the offender and not merely the crime.” Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949).
Beginning in the 1970s, though, judges, politicians and academics grew increasingly suspect of rehabilitation’s efficacy and increasingly concerned about discretionary sentencing procedures giving short-shrift to the value of equal treatment for those who commit factually similar crimes. Researchers highlighted and criticized the unpredictable and disparate sentences that often resulted from discretionary sentencing systems focused only on rehabilitation. And reform advocates urged the development of more structured sentencing systems that would lead judges to impose prison terms that were more fixed, certain and consistent. As criticisms of discretionary sentencing practices dovetailed with rising crime rates, “tough on crime” policies and politics began drawing adherents to the view that only long prison terms (some involving mandatory minimum sentences) could deter crime and that lengthening terms of incarceration would at least incapacitate offenders. Thus, legislatures nationwide (and Congress in particular) embraced sentencing regimes in which long prison terms were fixed at the time imposed. This phenomenon of distinctly harsh sentences now serves as the defining characteristic of the federal criminal justice system.