U. S. Supreme Court Happenings and Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of December 30, 2024 to January 3, 2025--
U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week Ending January 3, 2025 –
There was not a conference last week or this week for the Justices because they are out for Christmas and New Year recess. There were also not any new cases granted by the Court this week. The Justices will meet next for their January 10, 2025 conference and will also hold oral argument on that day. The Biden administration asked the court on Tuesday to allow it to enforce a 2021 anti-money-laundering law while the government appeals a federal judge’s decision to block the law. The solicitor general also asked the justices to weigh in on the propriety of such orders in which a single federal judge can block a law nationwide, known as universal injunctions.
Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of December 30, 2024-January 3, 2025 –1st Circuit
United States v. Recarey-Salas, (No. 23-1304)(January 2, 2025)–Recarey-Salas ("Recarey") was serving a term of supervised release when he was involved in a car accident. According to motions filed by his probation officer, information gathered at the scene of the accident showed that Recarey had violated the conditions of his release by possessing a firearm, ammunition, and controlled substances. At his sentencing hearing, Recarey admitted to possessing ammunition. On appeal, he says that the district court incorrectly treated him as admitting to all of the violations asserted by probation in its revocation motion, and, also, improperly imposed a ten-month, top-of-the-guidelines-range sentence because it considered non-ammunition-related violations. To clarify the Court’s only determination was that its ability to conduct meaningful review, dependent upon an accurate understanding of what the district court did and why, is hampered by the current state of the record. Accordingly, the Court vacated both the district court's judgment and its sentence as to revocation of supervised release, and remanded for further proceedings with instructions to correct the basis for revoking release and clarify the grounds for imposing sentence.
4th Circuit
United States v. Bright, (No. 23-4624)(4th Cir. January 3, 2025)– Brian Thomas Bright (“Appellant”) pled
guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl and was sentenced to 97 months of imprisonment. The primary issue on appeal was the application of the United States
Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) § 3B1.1(b) enhancement for a managerial role. Because the district court committed procedural error when it failed to make necessary findings as to this
enhancement as required per United States v. Evans, 90 F.4th 257, 262–63 (4th Cir. 2024), the Court vacated and remanded for resentencing in order for the district court to make the requisite
particularized findings required pursuant to Guidelines § 1B1.1, or to find that the criminal activity was “otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b).
5th Circuit
United States v. Muhammad, (No. 23-60352)(5th Cir. January 2, 2025)– This case involves an issue of first
impression: If a prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition is initially dismissed as too late, but, after that, the appellate court recalls the mandate in the preceding direct appeal and
affirm the conviction, and then the prisoner files another § 2255 habeas corpus petition, is that later habeas petition a “second or successive” habeas which requires an order granting it
from the appellate court? 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). The answer is no. If (1) no court has adjudicated a previous § 2255 habeas petition on the merits and (2) we recall the mandate in the direct
appeal, we conclude that it resets the count of the prisoner’s habeas petitions to zero. Accordingly, the Court reversed the April 24, 2023, order of the district court and remanded for
further proceedings.
8th Circuit
United States v. Rose, (No. 23-3560)(8th Cir. January 3, 2025)– Johnathon Lawrence Rose entered a conditional
plea of guilty to possessing five grams or more of methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and unlawfully possessing a firearm as a
felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). After determining Rose was a career offender, the district court sentenced him to a total of 210 months of imprisonment. He now
appeals his sentence. The Court analyzed the career offender enhancement of the Guidelines as applied to a defendant who had two convictions for Domestic Abuse Assault, Enhanced (DAAE) under
Iowa Code § 708.2A(3)(b). Id. at 943. The Court declined to decide whether DAAE is divisible for purposes of determining whether it is a crime of violence because the government waived the
argument. The Court then applied the categorical approach to DAAE and determined it was not categorically a crime of violence. The Court remanded to the district court to address Rose’s
career offender status and his sentence.
9th Circuit
United States v. DeFrance, (No. 23-2409)(9th Cir. December 30, 2024)– The panel reversed Michael Blake
DeFrance’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which forbids the possession of firearms by anyone convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence”; vacated his sentence;
and remanded. The predicate offense for DeFrance’s § 922(g)(9) indictment was his prior conviction for assaulting his girlfriend in violation of Montana Code Annotated section 45-5-206(1)(a),
a misdemeanor. Applying the categorical approach, the panel held that because section 45-206(1)(a) can be violated by inflicting emotional distress rather than physical injury, it does not
“ha[ve], as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3)(A)(ii). Accordingly, a conviction for violating section 45-206(1)(a) does not quality as a
“misdemeanor crime of violence” under § 922(g)(9). The Court vacated DeFrance’s sentence and remanded for resentencing or for other proceedings consistent with the judgment of this Court.
Finally, a decent week for positive cases and another good 922(g) case in DeFrance. Anyone that was charged and convicted of a § 922(g) offense should opt to have us review his/her case and see if with all the recent pending § 922(g) cases and Bruen support relief in their case.
We have received a lot of inquiries about 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) & 924(c) convictions based on the recent Rahimi decision and circuit decisions such as Range and Williams based on last year’s Bruen Supreme Court decision. In light of the above En Banc Third Circuit decision in Range, we suggest that anyone with a non-violent non-drug conviction where they were charged under § 922(g) should opt for the quick lookup we are offering during January of 2025. Contrary to inmate rumor at inmate.com, there are no changes to § 924(c) convictions. However, the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have determined that district courts may consider § 403(a)’s non-retroactive changes in combination with other factors presented by an incarcerated person. These Circuits effectively allow district courts to consider an incarcerated person’s stacked charges as an extraordinary and compelling reason, so long as they present another factor that may warrant compassionate release. We will need an outside contact’s name and telephone number, where you went to court, and your case number. We will contact your contact and let them know if you have any potential relief available from the above remedies. Our case evaluation telephone number for the above is (832) 346-0220.
President Biden still has about three weeks left in his presidency and his administration will continue to review clemency petitions and deliver criminal justice reform in a manner that advances equity and justice, promotes public safety, supports rehabilitation and reentry, and provides meaningful second chances. As we stated, it will be part of his legacy. As such, we believe that he will be commuting many more sentences of people with non-violent offenses before his term ends. Don’t miss out on this opportunity.
We also suggest that January 6th defendants file their clemencies materials to President-Elect Trump and his team well before he takes office on January 20, 2025. In order to help anyone who is interested in filing the new clemency papers and clemency package, Alert2020 is offering a special in order to get them completed ASAP before Biden leaves office and Trump takes office. Our clemency evaluation telephone number for the above is (832) 346-0220.
For the last 30 years, we have been very successful on direct appeals, 2255 motions, 2241 Petitions, First Step Act and Compassionate Release Motions, Earned Time Credits, DC Superior Court Petitions, State Post Conviction, Clemencies and Pardons and other specialized motions to mention a few avenues for relief we cover. The WCE is an excellent low-cost tool to see what can be done for you at any stage of the proceedings. It is thorough and detailed from day one of your case to present with our recommendations of any remedies available to you to gain relief.
If you are serious about fighting your case and want us to evaluate your case to see if you may have relief coming, request a Written Case
Evaluation.