ALERT UPDATE 2020 – BI-WEEKLY REPORT
Federal Circuit Court Wins | Edition: August 25 to September 5, 2025
Fighting for Your Freedom – One Victory at a Time
SUPREME COURT WATCH
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.
Key Cases:
Barrett v. United States – Can a single act trigger two sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 924(j) without violating double jeopardy?
Ellingburg v. United States – Is restitution under the MVRA “punishment” for ex post facto purposes?
Rico v. United States – Should fugitive-tolling extend to defendants who abscond from supervised release?
Rutherford v. United States– May courts treat the First Step Act’s destacking changes to § 924(c) as “extraordinary and compelling” grounds for compassionate release?
Fernandez v. United States– Can § 3582(c)(1)(A) compassionate release include reasons that overlap with grounds for relief under § 2255?
These two cases could reshape compassionate release. Rutherford has drawn broad bipartisan support all urging the Court to recognize outdated mandatory penalties as grounds for relief.
United States v. James, (No. 24-849-cr)(2nd Cir. August 29, 2025)
Mathew James was convicted of health care fraud, conspiracy, wire fraud, and identity theft for orchestrating a scheme involving falsified insurance claims, manipulated medical records, and
impersonated patients. The Eastern District of New York (Seybert, J.) sentenced him to 144 months’ imprisonment, forfeiture of $63 million, and restitution of $336 million. On appeal, James
challenged both his conviction and sentence. The Court concluded that the District Court erred in applying sentencing enhancements, including in violation of Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S.
319 (2011), and in calculating forfeiture and restitution. The Court vacated the sentence, forfeiture, and restitution orders, and remanded for resentencing.
United States v. Maioria, (No. 22-1115-cr)(2nd Cir. August 28, 2025)
The Second Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a defendant’s right to be present at sentencing is violated when non-mandatory supervised release conditions first appear in the written
judgment rather than being orally pronounced. Overruling United States v. Truscello, 168 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1999), the Court required sentencing judges to announce all discretionary conditions—
including those labeled “standard” under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c)—in open court. The panel vacated thirteen such conditions from Maiorana’s sentence and remanded.
United States v. Carlos Mercado, (No. 25-206-cr)(2nd Cir. Aug. 25, 2025)
The Court held that once revocation proceedings are initiated, a defendant is considered to be “awaiting execution” of part of his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1). The district court
erred in concluding it lacked authority to detain Mercado pending revocation proceedings. On remand, the court must decide whether detention is warranted under § 3143(a)(1) and Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(6). Mercado’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was denied, the amended order was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
United States v. James Perrin & Price Montgomery, (Nos. 22-2196, 22-2368)(3rd Cir. Aug.25, 2025)
Perrin and Montgomery operated a large-scale heroin trafficking ring in Pennsylvania and were convicted of multiple drug and firearm offenses. Montgomery was also convicted of witness
tampering tied to the killing and attempted killing of two women. On appeal, the Court vacated his sentence for using a firearm to kill a witness due to a sentencing error of imposing a
mandatory consecutive term, which constituted a clear error and remanded for resentencing.
United States v. Roberts, (No. 24-40109) (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025)
Five defendants were convicted after trial for participating in a multistate marijuana-trafficking and money-laundering scheme. On appeal, Eric Roberts argued the jury, not the court, should
have determined whether he possessed a short-barreled rifle. The government conceded error. Citing Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), the Fifth Circuit held that any fact raising
a mandatory minimum must be submitted to the jury. Because Roberts could not anticipate his statutory penalty from the indictment alone, the court vacated his sentence on Count 6 and
remanded for resentencing.
United States of America v. Kearney, (No. 24-2078)(10th Cir. Sept. 2, 2025)
A jury convicted Victor Kearney of filing a false tax return under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) and conspiring to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371. On appeal, he challenged only the
conspiracy conviction, arguing the jury instructions were plainly erroneous. The Tenth Circuit agreed. First, the conspiracy instruction failed to require proof that Kearney used deceitful
or dishonest means, misstating the elements of the charged crime. Second, the advice-of-counsel instruction applied only to the false-return count, even though Kearney’s good-faith reliance
defense extended to both counts. These compounded errors misdirected the jury and substantially affected Kearney’s rights. Accordingly, the court vacated Kearney’s conspiracy conviction and
remanded for further proceedings.
United States v. Blasdel, (No. 24-5071)(10th Cir. Sept. 2, 2025)
Zachary Jacob Blasdel appealed his conviction and 188-month sentence, challenging the denial of his Fourth Amendment suppression motion. Police initially entered and searched his storage
unit without a warrant, later incorporating the information obtained into an affidavit to secure a warrant. That search uncovered drugs and firearms, leading to a subsequent warrant for
Blasdel’s home, where officers seized additional contraband. Blasdel entered a conditional guilty plea to drug conspiracy, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and felon-
in-possession charges, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. On appeal, he argued that once the affidavit’s unlawfully obtained material is excised, it fails to establish
probable cause, rendering both the storage unit and home searches invalid as fruit of the poisonous tree. The Tenth Circuit agreed, holding the evidence from both searches should have been
suppressed. The Court reversed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, vacated Blasdel’s conviction and sentence, and remanded for further proceedings.
United States v. Jared Michael Harrison, (No. 23-6028 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 2025)
Harrison was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of marijuana. The district court dismissed the indictment, finding the statute unconstitutional
under Bruen. While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Rahimi, clarifying that firearm regulations may also disarm those who pose a risk of future danger. The
Tenth Circuit held the district court’s historical analysis was too narrow, but stopped short of deciding the ultimate issue. The Court reversed and remanded for fact-finding on whether
non-intoxicated marijuana users pose such a risk.
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