U. S. Supreme Court Happenings and Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of January 20-24, 2025--

U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week Ending January 24, 2025 –

The Justices met for their January24, 2025 conference today. We expect Orders on Monday, January 27, 2025.
The US Supreme Court granted cert in five cases this afternoon via this order list. Only one of the five involves criminal matters, Bowe v. United States, No. 24-5438, but this one may warm the heart of post-conviction proceduralists. Specifically, here is the questions presented in the criminal defendant's cert petition:
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” (emphasis added)..

The first question presented is:
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E), “[t]he grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition . . . for a writ of certiorari.” (emphasis added).

The second question presented is:
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this Court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

This dispute serves as yet another recent criminal case grants in which textualism would arguably favor a criminal defendant, but they are non- textual concerns that might push jurists to another resolution. Stay tuned.

Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of January 20-24, 2025 –

4th Circuit

United States v. McNeil, (No. 22-6923)(4th Cir. January 24, 2025)– McNeil pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to charges involving marijuana distribution and firearm possession. He now sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Specifically, McNeil argued that his counsel failed him twice over: by not moving to suppress evidence derived from a search that purportedly violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and by ignoring his repeated requests to seek out a plea agreement with the government. The district court dismissed McNeil’s § 2255 petition without an evidentiary hearing, and we granted McNeil certificates of appealability. The Court concluded that McNeil’s ineffective assistance claims cannot be resolved on the minimal record before the Court. Whether McNeil’s counsel performed ineffectively can be determined conclusively only after further factual development. Accordingly, the Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

United States v. Shields, (No. 23-4216)(4th Cir. January 22, 2025)– Shields pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court calculated an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment and sentenced Shields to 51 months in prison. Shields appeals, arguing that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address his non-frivolous argument for a downward variance. Because the district court failed to adequately address Shields’s argument and explain the sentence imposed, the Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

COMMENT:

In light of the recent En Banc Third Circuit decisions in Daniels and 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.

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.