U. S. Supreme Court Happenings and Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of July 22-26, 2024--
U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week ending July 26, 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 22-26, 2024 –3rd Circuit
Baker v. United States, (No. 23-2059)(3rd Cir. July 25, 2024)– Following a robbery of the First Atlantic Federal Credit Union in Neptune, New Jersey on January 13, 2010, federal prosecutors charged Steven Baker with bank robbery and using a firearm during the robbery, the latter in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). They offered Baker a plea agreement, under which he would plead guilty to those two charges and also admit to, but not be charged with, the commission of two other bank robberies while using a firearm. Baker’s counsel advised him that he faced a total of 15-17 years’ imprisonment if he accepted the plea and that, if he did not accept it, the government would also charge him in connection with the two other armed bank robberies. As to the three potential Section 924(c) counts, his counsel told him that he faced a consecutive term of 21 years’ imprisonment. In fact, he faced a consecutive 57-year mandatory minimum sentence under the statute’s “stacking” provision then in effect. After receiving this highly inaccurate advice, Baker turned down the plea, was charged in connection with the other robberies, and proceeded to trial, where he was convicted on all counts. His sentence was 57 years on the Section 924(c) counts plus 87 months on the bank robbery charges. Baker filed a direct appeal, which was affirmed. He then filed a Section 2255 federal habeas motion, arguing that his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for severely miscalculating his sentence exposure as he weighed the plea offer. The District Court denied relief, determining Baker could not show prejudice. Considering the significant disparity in Baker’s comparative sentence exposure between accepting the plea offer and going to trial and crediting his testimony that he would have accepted the plea agreement but for his counsel’s error, the Court concluded that Baker had demonstrated prejudice, and it reversed and remanded to the District Court with an instruction to order the government to reoffer the original plea agreement to Baker.
7th Circuit
United States v. Rivers, et. al., (Nos. 23-1781, 23-2201, & 23-2245) (7th Circuit July 24, 2024)– Anycco Rivers and Ladonta Tucker carjacked a BMW at gunpoint and led police on a high speed chase before crashing the vehicle into a guardrail and continuing the chase on foot. A jury convicted both men of carjacking. It also convicted Rivers of carrying and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. Tucker, on the other hand, received a lesser conviction under the same statute only for carrying— not discharging— a firearm and in relation to the carjacking. Rivers, for his part, challenged only his sentence, arguing the district court erred by applying a reckless endangerment enhancement. The Court vacated Rivers’s carjacking sentence and remanded to the district court in light of retroactive Guidelines Amendments 821 and 825.
10th Circuit
United States v. Mantano, (No. 23-2030)(10th Cir. July 23, 2024)– In 2022, Eligius Montano pleaded guilty to robbing a Metro PCS store in Belen, New Mexico. At sentencing, the district court applied two relevant guidelines enhancements: an increase in his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) for creating the impression he was holding a firearm under his sweatshirt during the robbery; and an endangerment adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 for inducing his getaway driver to navigate recklessly. In calculating Montano’s criminal history, the district court noted that each of five consolidated state cases, which were resolved in a single judgment with one overarching sentence, included a charge or charges with possible prison terms exceeding thirteen months. As a result, the district court assigned each case the maximum three criminal history points pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a). Montano appealed, challenging the correctness of each of the district court actions summarized above. The Court concluded the evidence did not support the district court’s attribution of three criminal history points to each of the five state cases. Thus, the Court remanded the matter to the district court with directions to vacate the judgment and resentence Montano considering an advisory sentencing range calculated to a criminal history category of V.
United States v. Wood, (No. 23-5027)(10th Cir. July 23, 2024)– A grand jury indicted Craig Wood on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm in Indian country, and assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian country. To obtain convictions on these charges, the government was obligated to prove Wood is an Indian. To do so, the government sought to introduce at trial a “Certificate of Indian Blood” (“Indian Blood Certificate”), a purported tribal document of the Seneca-Cayuga Nation. Wood objected to use of the Authenticity Certificate to satisfy Rule 803(6)’s conditions. He noted the government did not produce the Authenticity Certificate until after the jury was chosen and its members excused for lunch, leaving him without fair opportunity to examine and verify the document and its contents. Without addressing Rule 902(11)’s notice requirement, the district court overruled Wood’s objection. Based exclusively on the fact the same individual signed both relevant certificates, it concluded the Authenticity Certificate authenticated the Indian Blood Certificate, allowing admission of the Indian Blood Certificate into evidence. Thereafter, a jury convicted Wood on both charges. Wood appealed, contending the district court abused its discretion in allowing the government to use the late-produced Authenticity Certificate to authenticate the Indian Blood Certificate. This court agrees. In light of the facts and circumstances presented, the district court decision was manifestly unreasonable. Furthermore, the government has not carried its burden of demonstrating by a preponderance that the district court’s evidentiary error was harmless. Accordingly, the Court remanded the matter to the district court to vacate Wood’s convictions and to conduct any further necessary proceedings.
OTHER NEWSU. S. Sentencing Commission Schedules Big Meeting for August 8, 2024 to Vote on Retroactivity and Priorities –
As detailed in its official announcement, two weeks from today is the scheduled date for a big official public meeting for the U. S. Sentencing
Commission to take big votes on two sets of important issues. Here is the full announcement:
Pursuant to Rule 3.2 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the United States Sentencing Commission, a public meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, August 8, 2024 at 3:00
p.m. (EDT) (tentative), wherein it will Vote on Retroactivity of Certain 2024 Amendments including relevant conduct.
Fair Sentencing/Retroactive Sentence Reductions 4,146 Orders Granted to date.
Elderly Offender Home Confinement 1,246. Approved to date.
First Step Act Releases 35,700 granted to date.
Compassionate Releases/Reduction in Sentences 4,736 granted to date.
Population in RRC’s 8,375.
Population in Home Confinement 4,899.
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.