U. S. Supreme Court Happenings and Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of July 15-19, 2024--

U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week ending July 19, 2024 –

The Court is currently in summer recess. The new term will begin in October, 2024.

Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of July 15-19, 2024 –

1st Circuit

United States v. Figueroa-Roman, (No. 20-1170)(1st Cir. July 18, 2024)– Kevin Jadiel Figueroa-Roman went on a carjacking spree in April 2019, participating in multiple carjackings alongside three associates (ultimately codefendants) with the end game of selling the stolen cars. Caught, arrested, and indicted, Figueroa-Roman struck a deal and pleaded guilty to four counts of aiding and abetting his cohorts. On appeal, he challenged the 108-month sentence he was given by the district court. He claimed that sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the court inadequately explained its sentencing rationale and impermissibly relied on factors that were either already accounted for in the guidelines calculations or were unsupported by the record. The Court was unable to proceed to a meaningful review of aspects of this appeal without this "association with convicted felons" quandary cleared up. The Court vacated and remanded for clarification.

2d Circuit

Kzaiu v. United States, (No. 21-1247-pr)(2d Cir. July 16, 2024)– On April 14, 2019, Betim Kaziu filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that two of his four Counts of conviction were unlawful given intervening Supreme Court precedent. On May 3, 2021, the district court vacated his conviction as to Count Four following an intervening change in law, and reducing the sentence for his original conviction on Count One—conspiracy to commit murder in a foreign country—by two years, from 27 years to 25. The district court resentenced Kaziu on the papers submitted, without a full in-person sentencing proceeding. Kaziu maintained that de novo resentencing is always required following a vacated conviction on a collateral appeal. The Court did not determine the full scope of a district court’s discretion to dispense with de novo resentencing following vacatur under § 2255 of one of multiple counts of conviction, because it concluded in this case that the district court exceeded its discretion in declining to conduct a full de novo resentencing on account of two factors: (1) the resentencing judge is not the original sentencing judge, and (2) the defendant plausibly alleges changed circumstances. Accordingly, the Court vacated the sentence imposed and remanded for a full de novo resentencing.

4th Circuit

Woody v. Nance, Warden, (No. 21-6088)(4th Cir. July 17, 2024)– In 2020, the district court denied Woody’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The district court mailed Woody a certificate of appealability, allowing him to appeal to this Court. The Court did not know whether Woody received timely notice of the certificate of appealability or whether Woody filed two more letters, one with this Court and one with the district court; his other filings say that he did, but those letters do not appear on the docket. Without answers to those questions, the Court could not know whether Woody should have been allowed to appeal the merits of his habeas petition to this Court. For that reason, the Court vacated the district court’s denial of Woody’s motion to reopen the appeal period and remanded with instructions to conduct factfinding on the exact date that Woody received the certificate of appealability. On remand, the court should decide whether Woody’s October 2020 and January 2021 motions can be read as Rule 60(b) motions for relief from the habeas judgment and, if so, whether Woody is entitled to that relief.

5th Circuit

United States v. Jean, (No. 23-40463) (5th Cir. July 15, 2024)– The case concerns the question of whether "changes in the law" can provide a basis for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and this appeal concerns review of a reduction granted before the new U. S. Sentencing Commission amended guideline was applicable. The question presented: does a sentencing court have the discretion to hold that non-retroactive changes in the law, when combined with extraordinary rehabilitation, amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate release? With discretion in mind, the Court concluded that there is no textual basis for creating a categorical bar against district courts considering non-retroactive changes in the law as one factor. The Court explained that, although the Sentencing Commission’s November 1, 2023 Amendments are not binding on appeal, the Amendments support the Court’s outcome because it is within a district court’s sound discretion to hold that nonretroactive changes in the law, in conjunction with other factors sufficiently support a motion for compassionate release. To hold otherwise would be to limit the discretion of the district courts, contrary to Supreme Court precedent and Congressional intent. District courts are now guided by the November 1, 2023 Amendments in future cases.

8th Circuit

United States v. Brodeaux, (No. 23-2988)(8th Cir. July 17, 2024)– Bordeaux pled guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon; using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; and assaulting, resisting, and impeding a federal officer. The district court mistakenly sentenced Bordeaux at an offense level of 29 and a Criminal History Category of III, resulting in a Guideline range of 108 to 135 months. Had the Guidelines been properly applied, the court would have sentenced Bordeaux at an offense level of 28 and a Criminal History Category of III, resulting in a Guidelines range of 97 to 121 months. Given this miscalculation, the Court remanded to the district court for resentencing under the correct Guidelines range.

United States v. Sledge, (No. 23-1096)(8th Cir. July 16, 2024)– Darius Sledge were indicted on five counts stemming from their participation in, and leadership of, a drug distribution conspiracy in North Dakota. Following a jury trial, Baquan was found guilty on all counts, and Darius was found guilty on all but one count. The Court reversed Darius’s continuing criminal enterprise conviction because the Court concluded that the district court’s failure to issue a specific unanimity instruction was plain error that is clear or obvious under current law, and remanded for a new trial.

9th Circuit

United States v. Livar, (No. 22-30213)(9th Cir. July 15, 2024)– The panel vacated Livar’s sentence and remanded for resentencing in a case in which Livar pled guilty. In Livar’s plea agreement, the government reserved the right to change its middle-of-the-guidelines-range sentencing recommendation if Livar committed any new criminal offense, obstructed or attempted to obstruct justice, or acted inconsistently with acceptance of responsibility between entering the plea and sentencing. All three panel members agreed that when the government seeks to be relieved of its obligations under the plea agreement because, in its view, the defendant breached the plea agreement or failed to satisfy a condition precedent, the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve any such factual disputes. Because the district court declined to adjudicate his alleged new crime when he allegedly made profanity-laced threatening statements during a prison phone call, and therefore never made the required determination in this case, Livar’s was vacated and remanded.

United States v. Duarte, No. 22-50048 (9th Cir. May 9, 2024), finding that the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling renders unconstitutional federal law's criminal prohibition on gun possession by nonviolent felons. A majority of active Ninth Circuit Judges ordered this case be reheard en banc.

Latest Bureau of Prison’s Statistics (From BOP Website):

Fair Sentencing/Retroactive Sentence Reductions 4,145 Orders Granted to date.
Elderly Offender Home Confinement 1,246. Approved to date.
First Step Act Releases 35,496 granted to date.
Compassionate Releases/Reduction in Sentences 4,734 granted to date.
Population in RRC’s 8,353.
Population in Home Confinement 4,853.

COMMENT:

The Jean case from the Fifth Circuit is a very important case with regard to compassionate release. Both the facts and reasoning in Jean are worth reading in full. The Duarte case is another very important case especially if the Ninth Circuit En Banc Court rules in his favor.

Our new FREE LOOK program ONLY for methamphetamine cases ended on July 3, 2024. However, we are still swamped with requests that came in before the deadline. We are hard at work to complete the lookups, but it takes time to do so. Therefore, please be patient because it takes time to retreive and lookup the information, and inform the person requesting the information. We are about at least still a week to 7 days behind. Of course, last week’s hurricane did not help without electricity. This is only for methamphetamine cases and is not the same as a detailed in-depth Written Case Evaluation (“WCE”) for all remedies available. WCE’s take priority and they are completed with dispatch.

For the last 30 years, we have been very successful. We can help 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 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.