ALERT UPDATE 2020 – BI-WEEKLY REPORT
Federal Circuit Court Wins | Edition: August 11-22, 2025
Fighting for Your Freedom – One Victory at a Time
NEWSLETTER DELIVERY UPDATE
As of July 9, 2025, only one inmate per email can be reached. This adjustment means it now takes nearly three weeks to send one edition to our
more than 40,000 subscribers. To adapt, we’ve moved to a bi-weekly schedule and added staff, who now work full-time to ensure everyone eventually gets their copy. You can help make that
possible:
1. Share Your Copy — If you receive the newsletter, pass it along or make copies.
2. Post It in Common Areas — If you work in a law library or have access to bulletin boards, post it so more people can benefit.
3. Consider a Subscription — Paid subscriptions ensure priority delivery to both you and your loved ones in the free world.
With your help, we can keep the flow going strong despite these changes. Thank you.
The U.S. Supreme Court is in summer recess until October 2025, but the circuit courts continue issuing decisions that may help open the door to relief for incarcerated individuals.
CIRCUIT COURT VICTORIES in the 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits–United States v. Elmer Zelaya Martinez, (No. 23-4020) (4th Cir. August 12, 2025)
After an eight-week joint trial, the jury convicted all defendants on all counts. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence of Henry Zelaya Martinez. The court
found the district court’s oral pronouncement and written judgment materially inconsistent—adding payment requirements for a drug treatment program, prohibiting marijuana use, and referencing
non-existent local rules—warranting resentencing under United States v. Smith, 117 F.4th 584 (4th Cir. 2024).
United States v. Perez, (No. 24-4039) (4th Cir. August 12, 2025)
The Fourth Circuit clarified the distinction between factual and legal questions in determining jurisdiction. Perez conceded the government proved the factual location—FCI Petersburg—but the
court explained that jurisdictional status is a legal matter the court may decide based on legislative facts. While the location itself is for the factfinder, determining its jurisdictional
status is for the court. The panel found that the district court applied the wrong legal standard to this issue, vacated the conviction, and remanded for reconsideration under the correct
framework.
United States v. Barnes, (Nos. 23-5173) (6th Cir. August 14, 2025)
The district court applied the Armed Career Criminal Act’s mandatory minimum based on its own finding that each defendant had three prior convictions committed on different occasions. After
the Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), such findings must be made by a jury. The Sixth Circuit vacated Barnes’s sentence and remanded for further
proceedings.
United States v. Barrios, (No. 24-1941)(8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2025)
Vincent Alberto Barrios appealed his sentence as substantively unreasonable, arguing the district court improperly considered his decision to go to trial. The district court had calculated a
total offense level of 50 (reduced to 43), yielding a guideline range of life. It imposed concurrent terms of 360 months on two counts, life on two counts, and 240 months on two counts,
along with supervised release and forfeiture. At sentencing, the court noted that unlike many defendants in these kinds of cases, Barrios did not plead guilty, requiring the victim to
testify and be retraumatized. Barrios argued this punished him for exercising his right to trial. The Eighth Circuit acknowledged courts may withhold leniency for those who do not accept
responsibility but may not use sentencing to penalize a defendant for invoking trial rights. Because the record left unclear how much weight the court gave to this factor in imposing a life
sentence, the panel remanded for resentencing. The Court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing, as it was unclear whether the district court improperly relied on Barrios’s
decision to go to trial.
Gonzalez v. Herrera, (No. 24-2371) (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2025)
The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of Leon Gonzalez’s § 2241 habeas petition and ordered the government to recalculate his First Step Act earned time credits. Gonzalez, who earned credits
while in custody and on home confinement, argued they should reduce his supervised release term. The panel agreed, holding that the Act’s plain language and structure show Congress intended
earned credits to shorten both custodial and supervised release terms.
Bieganski v. Shinn, (No. 23-1982) (9th Cir. August 12, 2025)
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Bradley Bieganski’s habeas petition and remanded with instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The
panel held that Arizona’s statutory scheme unconstitutionally shifted the burden of disproving an essential element of the offense to the defendant, violating the Due Process Clause as
established in Patterson v. New York, Mullaney v. Wilbur, and In re Winship. The court concluded that the Arizona Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the conviction was an unreasonable
application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent under AEDPA.
United States v. Papke, (No. 24-5094) (10th Cir. August 12, 2025)
Papke appealed after the district court rejected two proposed plea agreements before ultimately accepting a third that resulted in a 235-month sentence. On appeal, he argued the court abused
its discretion in rejecting the first two agreements and sought reassignment to a different judge. The Tenth Circuit held that the court acted within its discretion in rejecting the first
plea but abused its discretion in rejecting the second, which was a valid “charge bargain” involving prosecutorial discretion rather than sentencing limits. Because the court failed to show
the required deference, the panel vacated Papke’s convictions and sentence and remanded for reconsideration of the second plea agreement. The court declined to order reassignment to a new
judge.
United States v. Hardy, (No. 24-8006) (10th Cir. August 12, 2025)
Hardy appealed his conviction and sentence, raising three issues: (1) denial of his right to be present when the court announced an evidentiary ruling in an in-chambers conference; (2)
admission of evidence under Rule 404(b); and (3) reliance on uncorroborated hearsay to determine drug quantity at sentencing. The Tenth Circuit vacated his sentence, holding the sentencing
error required remand for resentencing.
United States v. Buchanan, (No. 22-14195) (11th Cir. August 12, 2025)
Timothy Buchanan was convicted by a jury on multiple fraud-related charges and sentenced to 116 months in prison. On appeal, he challenged several convictions and his sentence, arguing
sentencing errors. Specifically, the sophisticated means enhancement. Because his role in the conspiracy was limited to cashing the counterfeit checks produced, Buchanan was simply a
“worker” in the conspiracy. The Court concluded that, without further findings, the district court erred in imposing the sophisticated means enhancement. The Court vacated his sentence and
remanded for resentencing.
We’ve helped thousands of federal inmates across the country. You could be next:
■ Appeals, § 2255 & § 2241 Motions
■ First Step Act & Compassionate Release
■ Earned Time Credit Disputes
■ Clemency & Pardon Petitions
■ State & Federal Post-Conviction
■ FREE evaluations for § 922(g) Second Amendment claims (Bruen/Range, et. al.)- Direct appeals
Lyle J. – ( transporting marijuana) release under a medical compassionate release;
Rita G.- Life sentence for Interstate domestic violence resulting in death released;
Jeremy R.– Released on medical compassionate release;
Terry A. – Released on medical compassionate release;
Jama – Got the 924(c) removed under Davis they resentenced him served 2 more years and released;
Robert Q. – he was an ACCA for a 922(g) released with compassionate release motion;
Dion B. – clemency and now released from Supervised release;
William W. – 2241 motion received his earned time credits;
Angie H. – 2241 motion received her earned time credits;
Dustin G. - life-- first motion reduced from life to 262 second motion was a 3582(c)(1) 782 reduced from 262 to 171 months. After 16 years in the feds he was released 06-11-25;
Jason D. – 9th circuit we got the career offender status off of him and reduced his sentence 10 years, Recently released. HOW TO REQUEST A WRITTEN CASE EVALUATION
What Is a Written Case Evaluation (“WCE”)? A WCE is a detailed, professional review of your entire federal criminal case—from the day of your
arrest to where your case stands today. We analyze every stage of your case. You’ll receive: (1) A clear procedural summary; (2) A detailed factual case overview; and (3) Our professional
recommendations on what remedies are still available to you.
We won’t just list your options — we’ll explain them. We show how each remedy could apply to your unique situation. We outline potential issues or grounds that could lead to a sentence
reduction, new trial, or even release. Don’t guess. Get real answers.
To apply for a WCE include the following:
1. Your full name and registration number;
2. Court of conviction;
3. Case number; and
4. A reliable phone number for a family contact
Contact Us:
■ Main Email: [Newsletter@federal-alert.com]
■ Main Telephone: (832) 346-0220
■ Speak with: Mimi, Ava, Lyn, Lily, Vicky, Anna, Andrew, or Harley
■ Hours: Mon–Fri, 9 AM–5 PM CST
■ Spanish Support: David Vera | (832) 930-3831
■ Work Email: david.vera@federal-alert.com