How a young man’s transformation behind bars reveals the systematic breakdown of judicial accountability and prison oversight
The Human Story Behind the Headlines
Picture this: A 21-year-old young man makes a devastating mistake that changes everything. Fast-forward seventeen years, and that same person has become something remarkable—one of only 0.2% of federal prisoners to earn an Associate’s degree with honors, a man who writes letters of deep remorse, someone college instructors describe in glowing terms. Yet Mark Johnson remains locked away, his freedom denied by a court system that seems to have forgotten what justice actually means.
Johnson’s recent denial under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (IRAA) isn’t just about one man’s fate—it’s a window into how our courts can lose their way, prioritizing punishment over redemption and bureaucratic convenience over human dignity. More disturbing still, it reveals how judicial misconduct and systematic prison abuse work hand in hand to perpetuate injustice.
Judge Cordero: A Pattern of Judicial Misconduct
Judge Laura Cordero violated court deadlines by a staggering 294 days—nearly ten months beyond the legally mandated deadline. This isn’t mere tardiness; it’s a fundamental violation of due process that should disqualify her from the bench.
The D.C. Superior Court’s own Administrative Order 24-15 mandates specific timelines for IRAA decisions. Johnson’s motion was filed May 9, 2024, with a September 6, 2024 deadline. Judge Cordero didn’t rule until June 27, 2025—a 294-day violation representing 245% over the deadline.
But Cordero’s problems run deeper than deadline violations. This is a judge with a documented history of controversial decisions and questionable judicial conduct.
The Religious Freedom Controversy
In 2020, thousands of religious freedom advocates submitted comments to the D.C. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure urging Cordero not be reappointed. Their complaint? Her 2018 summary judgment decision in The Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Hyun Jin Preston Moon violated the First Amendment and set dangerous legal precedent.
Critics argued that Cordero
“disregarded thousands of pages of evidence” and “denied defendants their right to due process.”
Rev. Howard Self, who led demonstrations against her reappointment, stated: “Judge Cordero not only denied the defendants their right to due process but completely ignored the First Amendment… Her short-sighted and uninformed decision threatens all board-governed non-profits based in Washington, D.C.”
A Record of Being Overturned
Judge Cordero’s appellate record reveals troubling patterns. While 83% of her decisions are affirmed—a statistic her supporters tout—this means 17% of her major decisions are overturned, indicating systematic legal errors. For context, that’s nearly one in five appeals, suggesting either poor legal reasoning or a troubling disregard for established law.
The Expert Witness Debacle
In Johnson’s case, Cordero initially delayed the hearing claiming “an expert witness … failed to appear.” This was false. Professor Ryan was available to testify via video conferencing about Johnson’s character, but Judge Cordero refused to allow remote testimony—creating an unnecessary delay while falsely blaming the defense.
When later pressed about this deception, the court quietly moved forward without acknowledging the misrepresentation. This pattern of creating delays through false justifications demonstrates either judicial incompetence or deliberate obstruction of justice.
Terminological Ignorance or Deliberate Obfuscation
Judge Cordero repeatedly referred to motions and legal documents as “pleadings” in her order. Any first-year law student knows that pleadings are not motions, particularly in criminal cases. This elementary error raises serious questions because in the practice of law, precise terminology isn’t academic nitpicking—it’s essential to justice. A judge who can’t distinguish between pleadings and motions shouldn’t be trusted with anyone’s liberty.
The BOP’s Administrative Remedy Scandal: A System Designed to Fail
Judge Cordero’s reliance on Johnson’s disciplinary record becomes particularly sinister when examined alongside the Bureau of Prisons’ systematic abuse of the Administrative Remedy Program—the only mechanism inmates have to challenge unfair treatment.
The Numbers Don’t Lie
The Remedy Project’s analysis of nearly 1.78 million grievance filings over 25 years reveals a 2.6% favorable outcome rate. Read that again: only 2.6% of legitimate inmate grievances receive favorable responses. This isn’t a functioning appeals system—it’s a bureaucratic smokescreen designed to create the illusion of due process while ensuring that staff abuse goes unchecked.
How the Shell Game Works
The BOP has perfected a three-level shell game that makes Kafka’s nightmares look reasonable.
Level 1 – Institution: Wardens reject grievances using fabricated procedural violations. Staff routinely claim inmates failed to follow non-existent rules or create impossible catch-22 situations.
Level 2 – Regional Office: Appeals are rubber-stamped as denied “without elaborating.” No substantive review occurs.
Level 3 – Central Office: The most cynical level, where officials claim inmates never filed initial grievances—even when they’re appealing those exact rejections.
Case Study: Johnson’s Kafkaesque Experience
Johnson’s own experience with the Administrative Remedy Program reveals the system’s calculated dysfunction. When Johnson filed a grievance challenging a staff members theft of his property, the response was a masterpiece of bureaucratic gaslighting.
The Warden’s False Rejection claimed Johnson failed to attempt “informal resolution” first—a factually false claim. Johnson made an informal resolution attempt, he sent an electronic request to staff (an email) directly to Associate Warden E. Kessel and attached a printed copy of the email to his request (i.e. “BP-9”) submitted to Warden Harrison. If Harrison actually read Johnson’s submission, there is no way he could have concluded that Johnson failed to make an informal resolution attempt.
The Regional Office Rubber Stamp affirmed the Harrison’s rejection “without elaborating”—literally providing no reasoning or legal analysis.
The Central Office Circular Logic. Most damning of all, the Central Office rejection stated: “YOU MUST FIRST FILE A BP-9 REQUEST THROUGH THE INSTITUTION FOR THE WARDEN’S REVIEW AND RESPONSE BEFORE FILING AN APPEAL AT THIS LEVEL.”
The problem? Johnson HAD filed a BP-9 through the institution—that’s exactly what was rejected! This response proves the Central Office didn’t even read his appeal or deliberately chose to ignore the merits, violating every principle of due process and administrative law.
Psychological Warfare Tactics
The BOP’s strategy follows classic institutional manipulation patterns designed to break down inmates psychologically. First, create impossible standards and demand “perfect compliance” while operating deliberately chaotic and violent environments. Next, move the goalposts by changing requirements after submission to ensure failure. If that doesn’t work, claim violations of non-existent rules while staff routinely violate actual regulations. Then there’s always the circular rejection option, sending cases between levels without substantive review, exhausting inmates’ will to fight. This is all part of the BOP’s weaponized bureaucracy, using procedural complexity to deny legitimate complaints.
Why This Matters for Johnson’s Case
When Judge Cordero criticizes Johnson’s disciplinary record, she’s accepting at face value a system designed to generate false violations. The BOP routinely:
- Creates disciplinary infractions through impossible scheduling conflicts (like Johnson’s “too late” incident)
- Criminalizes safety-conscious behavior (like Johnson’s refusal to install razor wire without training)
- Punishes inmates for staff incompetence while providing no meaningful appeal process
- Maintains false disciplinary records because the Administrative Remedy Program is designed to prevent corrections
When Courts Break Their Own Rules
Beyond the 294-day delay, Judge Cordero engaged in a pattern of procedural manipulation that suggests deliberate obstruction.
On June 12, 2025—six months after the case was ready for decision—Cordero suddenly demanded updated disciplinary records. This mysterious records request was purely an excuse tactic. Johnson’s attorneys were forced to file multiple motions begging the court to simply issue a decision. When judges ignore their own deadlines so flagrantly that attorneys must file “motions for ruling,” the system has broken down completely.
The Razor Wire Incident: When Safety Becomes A Punishable Offense
Here’s where the court’s reasoning becomes particularly troubling. Judge Cordero criticized Johnson for “refusing a work assignment,” painting him as defiant and uncooperative. The reality? Johnson had an institution work detail assignment on the landscaping crew. While working his landscaping job, Johnson was ordered by staff to install razor wire—a dangerous task for which he had no training and which posed clear safety risks, in addition to being outside the scope of his assigned work detail.
Johnson refused to risk his physical safety performing untrained work. In any other workplace, this would be called “following safety protocols.” In federal prison, it becomes evidence of “non-compliance.” The court’s failure to distinguish between reasonable safety concerns and actual defiance reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the prison environment Johnson navigates daily.
When courts accept the BOP’s characterization of safety-conscious behavior as a refusal to work, they become complicit in a system that punishes inmates for protecting themselves from staff negligence.
The “Too Late” Mentality: When Bureaucracy Becomes Cruelty
The court also faulted Johnson for being “absent for an assignment”—except he wasn’t absent. Johnson was late to a unit team review because he had two mandatory appointments scheduled simultaneously by BOP staff. He attended one, then rushed to the other, only to be told by his case manager: “too late, I already put up my stuff so I wrote you a shot.” This single sentence encapsulates everything wrong with the federal prison system:
- Staff create impossible situations (scheduling conflicts)
- Punish inmates for staff errors (the scheduling was BOP’s fault)
- Prioritize convenience over fairness (“I already put up my stuff”)
- Generate disciplinary infractions arbitrarily (the “shot” was completely unwarranted)
Adding insult to injury, Unit Team review (which sounds important) as practiced by most case managers in the BOP involves nothing more than signing a piece of paper.
This is the reality of federal prison—a system where staff convenience trumps fairness, where impossible scheduling conflicts become disciplinary infractions, and where courts accept these Kafkaesque scenarios as evidence of a prisoner’s character flaws rather than systemic dysfunction.
The Programming Myth: Blaming Inmates for Phantom Programs
Judge Cordero criticized Johnson’s “lack of therapeutic programming to address the causes of his criminality.” But here’s the catch: there’s no evidence such programs were ever offered and refused. The court simply assumed they existed and blamed Johnson for not participating in phantom programs.
This is judicial sleight of hand at its worst—creating a standard Johnson cannot meet because the resources to meet it don’t exist. It’s like criticizing someone for not flying to the moon after you take away their rocket!
The Real Story Behind Johnson’s Disciplinary Record
Before examining the arbitrary standards applied to Johnson’s case, let’s understand what his disciplinary record actually contains—and what it reveals about the systematic abuse of the prison disciplinary system.
The Complete Disciplinary Timeline: 10 Infractions Over 15+ Years
Johnson’s complete disciplinary record spans from 2010 to 2024, totaling 10 infractions over more than 15 years of incarceration. Here’s the chronological breakdown:
2010-2013: Early Period (4 infractions in 3 years)
1. October 17, 2010: 300-level “possessing unauthorized item” – Johnson claimed items were left in his cell by others
2. May 1, 2012: 300-level “refusing work assignment” – The razor wire incident where Johnson refused dangerous untrained work
3. October 11, 2012: 200-level “fighting with another person” – Critical context: Johnson was attacked and had to defend himself, but the BOP categorically rejects self-defense as a valid defense
4. February 21, 2013: 300-level “being absent for assignment” – The scheduling conflict where Johnson attended one mandatory appointment but was late to another
2014-2015: Clean Period (0 infractions for 2 years)
2016: Administrative Harassment (2 infractions in 2 days)
5. January 25, 2016: 300-level “pouring liquid under staff member’s office door”
6. January 26, 2016: 200-level “interfering with security devices” – Johnson continued to press the duress button after being ordered to stop (staff were ignoring Johnson’s legitimate complaints about being housed in a cell with a broken toilet full of feces)
2017-2018: Clean Period (0 infractions for 2 years)
2019-2020: Communication Violations (2 infractions)
7. October 25, 2019: 100-level “possessing hazardous tool” (cellphone) – Found during pat search
8. June 18, 2020: 100-level “possessing hazardous tool” (cellphone SIM card) – Johnson denied possession, item found in locker
2021-2023: Clean Period (0 infractions for 3+ years)
2024: The Shaw Retaliation Campaign
9. June 13, 2024: 300-level “being unsanitary or untidy” – The Shaw Incident
10. October 6, 2024: 300-level “being insolent to staff”
The Shaw Incident: Institutional Retaliation Exposed
The June 2024 “unsanitary” infraction reveals the depths of BOP corruption. Officer Specialist E. Shaw issued approximately 30 incident reports during her single shift in Johnson’s housing unit on June 13, 2024, stating she was angry about her assignment (she normally works in visitation) and wanted to retaliate against supervisors. Witnesses heard her say “I’ll give the Lieutenants something to do” by writing incident reports.
What was Shaw’s allegations against Johnson? Having a “dirty cell” because he left his glasses on his locker and had “handmade lines” in his cell. While Johnson had left his glasses on the locker, there were no handmade lines. No investigation was performed, Johnson was found guilty solely based on Shaw’s unsigned incident report—a clear violation of due process and BOP policy.
This represents a textbook case of staff retaliation violating federal ethics rules (5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)), yet Johnson was punished and the system provided no meaningful remedy through its Administrative Remedy Program (see Remedy ID 1203750).
The Cellular Phone “Hazardous Tool”: When Prison Policy Creates Criminals
Two of Johnson’s most serious infractions (100-level) involve cellphones—violations that illuminate the arbitrary nature of prison classification systems. The BOP classifies cellphone possession (code 108) as more serious than “assaulting any person” (code 224), “sexual assault of any person” (code 229), “extortion” (code 204), “possession of … a lock pick” (code 208), and “theft” (code 219); creating a bizarre hierarchy where communication becomes more dangerous than violence.
Context matters, cellphones are often used for maintaining family connections that research shows reduce recidivism. Yet the BOP’s zero-tolerance approach treats desperate attempts to maintain human connection as evidence of ongoing criminality.
Johnson’s cellphone violations occurred in 2019 and 2020—over 4 years ago. Since then, he has had no serious infractions, demonstrating the kind of behavioral improvement that IRAA was designed to recognize.
The Self-Defense Impossibility
Johnson’s only violence-related infraction—the 2012 fighting incident—occurred when he was attacked by another inmate and defended himself. The BOP’s categorical rejection of self-defense as a valid legal defense creates an impossible situation: inmates must either submit to assault or face disciplinary action for protecting themselves.
This policy effectively criminalizes the natural human instinct for survival while the institution systematically fails to protect inmates from violence.
Pattern Analysis: Decreasing Severity Over Time
Johnson’s disciplinary record reveals a clear pattern of maturation:
- Years 1-3 (2010-2013): 4 infractions, including one violence-related
- Years 4-7 (2014-2017): 2 infractions (clustered in 2016)
- Years 8-15+ (2018-2024): 4 infractions, with 3+ year gap of perfect conduct
Johnson has had zero serious infractions in the past 4+ years, with only minor administrative violations (including one manufactured by a retaliating staff member).
BOP’s own assessment: Johnson receives a “Good” living skills rating, indicating substantial compliance with institutional expectations. The BOP’s own recidivism assessment tool (PATTERN) found that Johnson presents a low recidivism risk.
A Tale of Two Standards: How Arbitrary Justice Works
Now consider Johnson’s record in comparison to others who received IRAA relief:
- United States v. Kenneth Taylor (2024): Judge Hertzfeld granted IRAA relief despite the petitioner having “47 incidents for 54 violations over 22 years”—more than five times Johnson’s infraction rate
- United States v. Miller (2022): Judge Iscoe granted relief noting “substantial rather than perfect compliance” for a petitioner with “13 infractions over 13 years”—a higher rate than Johnson’s 10 over 15+ years
- Mark Johnson: Denied relief despite the best disciplinary record of any comparison case
Even more striking, Judge Cordero herself previously granted IRAA relief to Gregory Napper, who served 16 years of a 384-month sentence for first-degree murder. The court provided no meaningful distinction between Napper’s case and Johnson’s, suggesting the kind of arbitrary decision-making that undermines public confidence in our justice system.
The Question That Demands an Answer
If Johnson—with his exemplary programming record, superior disciplinary record compared to successful IRAA petitioners, genuine remorse, and strong reentry plan—doesn’t qualify for IRAA relief, then who does? And if the same judge grants relief to some first-degree murder defendants but not others with dramatically better institutional records, what factor is really driving these decisions?
The numbers don’t lie
- Taylor: 47 incidents/54 violations over 22 years = 2.4 violations per year
- Miller: 13 infractions over 13 years = 1.0 infractions per year
- Johnson: 10 infractions over 15+ years = 0.67 infractions per year (BEST RECORD)
Judge Cordero granted relief to Taylor despite his dramatically worse record, yet denied Johnson with the best compliance rate of any comparative case. This isn’t justice—it’s judicial roulette.
The Ends Justify the Means—Unless You’re an Inmate
The court criticized Johnson for not recognizing that “the ends do not justify the means.” The irony is staggering. The Federal Bureau of Prisons routinely engages in:
- Unlawful Collective punishment (punishing entire housing units for individual violations)
- Regulatory violations (ignoring their own written policies when convenient)
- Catch-22 situations (creating impossible compliance scenarios)
- Administrative fraud (the 2.6% remedy success rate proves systematic denial of legitimate grievances)
All of this occurs in service of maintaining control and avoiding accountability. Johnson is expected to embrace a moral principle that the institution holding him systematically violates. He’s asked to accept a higher standard of conduct than the system itself maintains.
What IRAA Actually Means: Legislative Intent vs. Judicial Nullification
The Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act was designed with a specific purpose: to recognize that young people who commit crimes can change, mature, and become contributing members of society. The D.C. Council explicitly determined that 15 years of incarceration satisfies retributive goals for youthful offenders and that courts should focus on rehabilitation and current dangerousness—not ongoing punishment for past acts.
Johnson embodies exactly what IRAA was meant to address:
- He was 21 when he committed his crime
- He’s served over 16.5 years (effectively 19 years with good time)
- He’s demonstrated extraordinary rehabilitation through education and programming
- He has only one violence-related infraction in over 12 years
- Multiple professionals vouch for his characterization- He has strong family support and housing waiting for him
Yet Judge Cordero essentially ignored IRAA’s rehabilitative focus in favor of retributive reasoning that the statute explicitly forbids. This isn’t just bad judging—it’s judicial nullification of legislative intent.
The Real Questions We Should Be Asking
Here’s what we should be asking about Judge Cordero:
- Why did she violate court deadlines by 294 days? What was she doing for those ten months that was more important than a man’s liberty?
- Why did she lie about the expert witness? Was this deliberate deception or mere incompetence?
- How can she justify inconsistent IRAA rulings? What distinguishes cases where she grants relief from Johnson’s case?
- Why doesn’t she understand basic legal terminology? Should a judge who confuses motions with pleadings be trusted with complex constitutional questions?
- What accountability exists for judicial misconduct? Who watches the watchers when they systematically violate their own rules?
What about the BOP? The law requires humane treatment and rehabilitation of prisoners, so we must ask:
- How is a 2.6% remedy success rate legal? At what point does systematic denial of grievances become a constitutional violation?
- Why do courts accept BOP disciplinary records at face value when the appeal system is demonstrably fraudulent?
- What purpose does the Administrative Remedy Program serve if not to provide meaningful redress for legitimate grievances?
- How many inmates remain wrongfully punished because their grievances were rejected through bureaucratic shell games?
Johnson’s case demands immediate appellate review, not just for his sake, but for the integrity of the IRAA process itself. But the deeper issues require systematic reform: judicial accountability and prison system reform.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
Mark Johnson today is not the same person who committed a crime at 21. He’s educated, remorseful, supported by family and professionals, and equipped with the tools for successful reentry. He represents exactly the kind of transformation IRAA was designed to recognize and reward.
His continued imprisonment serves no legitimate penological purpose. It doesn’t protect public safety—Johnson poses no demonstrated danger. It doesn’t deter crime—he’s already serving a sentence far beyond IRAA’s 15-year threshold. It doesn’t aid rehabilitation—he’s already achieved that. It doesn’t satisfy retribution—IRAA explicitly forbids retributive reasoning
What Johnson’s continued imprisonment does serve is as a stark reminder that our justice system often serves the convenience of its administrators rather than the cause of justice itself.
The BOP’s systematic denial of meaningful remedies makes disciplinary records unreliable evidence. The inconsistent application of IRAA standards suggests arbitrary decision-making that violates equal protection principles.
Mark Johnson has earned his freedom through seventeen years of exemplary conduct, extraordinary educational achievement, and genuine transformation. The question is whether our courts have the wisdom to recognize it and the courage to act on it.
The measure of a justice system isn’t found in its capacity to punish, but in its ability to recognize when punishment has served its purpose and redemption has taken root. Johnson’s case will test whether we still understand that distinction—and whether judges like Laura Cordero can be held accountable when they fail to meet even the most basic standards of judicial conduct.
When judges violate deadlines, prisons manufacture disciplinary violations, and appeals systems operate as elaborate frauds, the very concept of justice becomes meaningless. Mark Johnson’s case demands not just his freedom, but a reckoning with the systematic breakdown of accountability that makes such injustices possible.
The clock is ticking. Every day Johnson remains imprisoned beyond what IRAA contemplates is another day our justice system fails its most fundamental obligation: to be just.
Sources Compilation
Primary Legal Documents
Court Orders and Filings
1. United States v. Johnson, Case No. 2008 CF1 006989, Order (D.C. Super. Ct. June 27, 2025)
2. Motion to Reduce Sentence under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act, D.C. Code § 24-403.03 (May 9, 2024)
3. United States’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence Under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (September 7, 2024)
4. Reply in Support of IRAA Motion (October 7, 2024)
5. Joint Notice Regarding Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act, D.C. Code § 24-403.03 (June 16, 2025)
Administrative Orders
6. D.C. Superior Court Administrative Order 24-15, Motion Ripe Date and Performance Standards Measures (September 30, 2024)
Disciplinary Records
7. Bureau of Prisons Inmate Discipline Data – Chronological Disciplinary Record for Mark Johnson (Register No: 42481-007)
8. BOP PATTERN Worksheet Summary, Assessment Date: 03/07/2025
9. Updated Bureau of Prisons Inmate Disciplinary Record (June 13, 2025)
Statutory and Regulatory Sources
Federal and D.C. Code
10. D.C. Code § 24-403.03 – Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (IRAA)
11. D.C. Code § 24-403.03(c)(3) – Substantial compliance standard
12. D.C. Code § 24-403.03(c)(10) – Diminished culpability factor
13. 28 C.F.R. § 541.3 – BOP disciplinary infraction categories
14. 28 C.F.R. § 542.10-542.19 – Administrative Remedy Program regulations
15. 28 C.F.R. Part 115 – Prison Rape Elimination Act National Standards
16. 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b) – Federal ethics rules for honest performance of duties
BOP Policy Statements
17. BOP Program Statement P1330.18 – Administrative Remedy Program (January 6, 2014)
18. BOP Program Statement P5270.09 – Inmate Discipline Program (July 8, 2011)
19. BOP Program Statement P5310.16 – Treatment and Care of Inmates with Mental Illness (2014)
Case Law and Legal Precedents
D.C. Court of Appeals Cases
20. Bailey v. United States, 251 A.3d 724, 729-730 (D.C. 2021)
21. Bishop v. United States, 310 A.3d 629, 649 (D.C. 2024)
Comparative IRAA Cases
22. United States v. Kenneth Taylor, 2001 FEL 005273, 2001 FEL 005077 Order (D.C. Super. Ct. July 8, 2024) (Hertzfeld, J.)
23. United States v. Miller, 1991 FEL 008677 Order (D.C. Super. Ct. February 10, 2022) (Iscoe, J.)
24. United States v. Gregory Napper, 2007 CFI 021557 Order (D.C. Super. Ct. July 14, 2023) (Cordero, J.)
25. United States v. Gregory Bolden, 2006 CFI 28369 Order (D.C. Super. Ct. July 28, 2022) (Pittman, J.)
26. United States v. Deon Collins, 2006 CFI 009470, 2008 CF2 027154 Order (D.C. Super. Ct. February 29, 2024) (Staples, J.)
Federal Circuit Cases
27. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 28 (2003)
28. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 573 (2005)
29. Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 393 (1958)
30. Jones v. Cross, 637 F.3d 841, 847 (7th Cir. 2011)
31. Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 938-39 (7th Cir. 2007)
32. Isham v. Pugh, No. CIV 10-1799, 2010 WL 4122208 (D. Minn. September 23, 2010)
33. Bautista v. Taylor, No. 5:18-cv-503-Oc-34PRL (M.D. Fla. April 1, 2020)
Legislative and Policy Sources
D.C. Council Reports
34. D.C. Council, Committee on the Judiciary & Public Safety Report on Bill 23-0127 (November 23, 2020)
35. 2020 Committee Report – IRAA amendments and legislative intent
Academic and Policy Research
36. Marvin Frankel, Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order 11 (New York, Hill & Wong, 1973)
37. The Remedy Project data dashboard tracking BOP Administrative Remedy Program outcomes (https://www.theremedyproj.org)
38. Jocelyn Fontaine et al., Families & Reentry: Unpacking How Social Support Matters (2012)
39. Minnesota Department of Corrections research on family support and recidivism
Administrative and Government Documents
Administrative Remedy Appeals
40. Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal, Remedy ID 1196146-A1 (Johnson v. BOP)
41. Administrative Remedy Rejection Notice, Central Office Appeal (July 15, 2024)
42. Remedy ID 1203750 – Johnson’s appeal of June 2024 Shaw incident
43. Remedy ID 1216650 – Johnson’s appeal of October 2024 incident
BOP Assessment Documents
44. 2024 Custody Classification Form rating Johnson’s programming as “good”
45. Medical and Mental Care Level 1 assessments
Educational and Character References
Letters of Support and Professional Evaluations
46. Letter from Georgetown Professor (identifying Johnson as “intellectual force”)
47. Letter from Dr. [Name] (teaching assistant recognition)
48. Letter from [Name] (teaching assistant evaluation)
49. Letter from M.A., D. (Think Tank program recognition)
50. Certificate for superior effort from Beckley Responsibility and Values Enhancement (BRAVE) Program
Judge Cordero Background Sources
Judicial Conduct and Reappointment
51. Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure Report on Judge Laura Cordero (April 27, 2020)
52. “Right to Believe” grassroots advocacy comments regarding Judge Cordero’s reappointment (March 2020)
53. The Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Hyun Jin Preston Moon case materials (2018)
54. Rev. Howard Self statements on Judge Cordero’s judicial conduct
Appellate Record
55. Judge Cordero’s appellate reversal statistics (17% reversal rate from 186 appeals)
Expert Testimony and Scheduling
56. Professor Katie Ryan – Character witness availability for video testimony
57. Court scheduling orders for November 19, 2024 hearing
58. Defense counsel notices regarding expert witness appearances
Crime and Sentencing Context
59. Original sentencing documents – March 23, 2010 (420 months plus supervised release)
60. Trial evidence regarding March 12, 2008 incident at Truesdell Elementary School
61. Appeals court decisions on Johnson’s original conviction and sentencing
Supporting Organizations and Reentry Resources
62. Ready2Work organization information
63. D.C. Infrastructure Academy (DCIA) program details
64. Free Minds organization and programming
65. MORCA (reentry support organization)
66. Inside-Out community facilitator certification programming
Statistics and Research Data
67. The Remedy Project statistics: 1.78 million grievance filings over 25 years, 2.6% favorable outcome rate
68. BOP educational achievement statistics: Johnson among 0.2% earning Associate degrees
69. Federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum provisions for first-degree murder
70. Recidivism research on family support and educational achievement Ethical and Professional Standards
71. Federal ethics regulations for government employees
72. Judicial conduct standards for timeline compliance
73. Due process requirements for administrative hearings
74. Legal profession terminology standards (motions vs. pleadings)
Note: Some specific names and personal identifiers have been redacted in the source materials for privacy protection, but the substantive content and legal citations remain intact and verifiable.
