U. S. Supreme Court Happenings and Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the week of January 6-10, 2025--

U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week Ending January 10, 2025 –

The Justices MET for their January 10, 2025 conference today. The first conference of the new year. They discussed what might become the final petitions granted for oral argument during the 2024 Term. It is also the next-to-last conference before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20. There are a number of those petitions the justices are set to consider, seeking review of lower court decisions on student-loan forgiveness, the constitutionality of federal agencies, and more.

If the justices decide to take up any of these cases, the government will presumably be represented in its briefs and at oral argument at the Supreme Court by Trump’s pick for solicitor general, John Sauer. Noel Francisco, solicitor general during the first Trump administration, departed from the longstanding tradition of maintaining the government’s position between Republican and Democratic administrations in several cases before the court. In turn, Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, sometimes did the same, veering from Francisco’s stance in disputes over the Affordable Care Act, labor unions, and more. It remains to be seen whether Sauer will return the favor, both in cases already argued before the court and in cases such as the following ones filed by the Biden administration, should the justices decide to hear them this spring. We expect Order on Monday, January 13, 2025.

Next Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Hewitt (et al.) v. U.S. to consider this formal question presented:
Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the FSA’s enactment when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the FSA’s enactment.

However, it appears that there is a particular missing argument in Hewitt briefs. The Supreme Court stated in Graham v. Florida that a “sentence lacking any legitimate penological justification is by its nature disproportionate to the offense” and thus violative of the Eighth Amendment In turn, given that it seems entirely pointless, as well as ridiculous, to reimpose multi-century (and congressionally repudiated) prison terms on defendants like Corey Duffey, Tony Hewitt and Jarvis Ross, I am troubled the Hewitt briefs do not raise any constitutional clams based in the Eighth Amendment or even the statutory argument of constitutional doubt. Again, given modern practices and jurisprudence, I am not actually surprised that a case about decades, even centuries, of imprisonment do not engender robust constitutional arguments. But, as we see it, this reflects problems with our modern practice rather than with our founding constitutional commitments.

Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of January 6-10, 2025 –

4th Circuit

United States v. Luong, (No. 22-4360)(4th Cir. January 8, 2025)– Thuy Tien Luong appeals her conviction of forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1589. At sentencing, the district court applied a two-level vulnerable victim enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G) § 3A1.1(b)(1) and a four-level permanent scarring enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2H4.1(b)(1)(A), among other enhancements. On appeal, Luong argued that the district court erred when it applied a two-level vulnerable victim enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). She contended that the evidence does not support application of the enhancement and that the district court procedurally erred when it failed to state factual findings to support application of the enhancement. Accordingly, the Court vacated and remanded her sentence with instructions for resentencing.

5th Circuit
United States v. Daniels, (No. 22-60596 (5th Cir. January 6, 2025)– Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) bars an individual from possessing a firearm if he is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance. A jury found that Patrick Daniels, Jr., was such an unlawful user, and a judge sentenced him to nearly four years in prison. But the jury did not necessarily find that Daniels was intoxicated at the time of his arrest, nor did it identify the last time Daniels used an unlawful substance. So the Court reversed the conviction and held that § 922(g)(3), as applied to him, was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded for reconsideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889 (2024). After Rahimi, this circuit heard a similar challenge to a prosecution brought under § 922(g)(3). In United States v. Connelly, the Court held that the government could not constitutionally apply § 922(g)(3) to a defendant based solely on her “habitual or occasional drug use.” 117 F.4th 269, 282 (5th Cir. 2024). That case controls this one. Daniels’s § 922(g)(3) conviction was inconsistent with our “history and tradition” of gun regulation. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. at 2128. The Court did not invalidate the statute in all its applications, nor did it decide that § 922(g)(3) could never cover the conduct of which Daniels stood accused. But applications of § 922(g)(3) must accord with our nation’s history of firearm regulations, and disarming individuals solely for their prior, occasional, or habitual marihuana use does not. Because the jury did not necessarily find that Daniels was presently or even recently engaged in unlawful drug use, the Court therefore reversed his conviction again and remanded.

COMMENT:

Another good § 922(g) case in Daniels from the Fifth Circuit. Of course, Rahimi came out of the Fifth Circuit also. Anyone and everyone following Second Amendment litigation since the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen ruling knows that it is not a question of whether, but just a matter of when, the Justices will take up challenges to various federal criminal gun prohibitions to continue adumbrating for lower courts just how they think originalistism is supported to work here. The Rahimi ruling, perhaps unsurprisingly, only deepened uncertainties (and lower court splits) on various issues, and a number of recent pieces highlighting just some of the Second Amendment jurisprudential messiness has us feeling somewhat more sure another Second Amendment cert grant will be coming soon. With all this new litigation, 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.

In light of the recent 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.