U. S. Supreme Court Happenings, Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions and Other News for the week of March 4-8, 2024--

U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week ending March 8, 2024 –

In March 2024, there are no conferences scheduled for the Justices, but there is oral argument on March 18-20 and March 25-27, 2024. However, we are hoping that some of the opinions we have been waiting for will be decided and released in March.

In Garland, Att'y Gen. v. Cargill, (No. 22-976), on oral argument heard on February 28, 2024, the Supreme Court is split over bump-stock ban. While some justices at oral argument worried about how bump-stock owners would fare under a 2018 regulation that criminalized a product they already owned, others suggested that, with the ability to fire hundreds of rounds per minute, semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks were precisely the kind of weapons Congress intended to bar as “machine guns.”

Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of March 4-8, 2024 –

2d Circuit

Williams v. Binance, (No. 22-972) (2d Cir. March 8, 2024)– Plaintiffs-Appellants used Defendants- Appellees’ website, Binance.com, to purchase a type of crypto-asset called “tokens.” They allege that by selling these tokens without registration, Binance violated Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77l(a)(1), and the “Blue Sky” securities laws of various states.
Plaintiffs also seek recission of contracts they entered into with Binance under Section 29(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78cc(b). The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims as impermissible extraterritorial applications of these statutes and also dismissed their federal claims as untimely. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that their transactions on the Binance exchange were domestic transactions and that therefore the application of federal and state securities laws here was not impermissibly extraterritorial. The Court further concluded that Plaintiffs’ federal claims did not accrue until after they made the relevant purchases, and therefore their claims arising from purchases made during the year before filing suit are timely. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded as to the claims challenged on appeal.

3rd Circuit

United States v. Cruz, (No. 23-1192)(3rd Cir. March 8, 2024)– Cruz wanted to make money behind bars. So he hatched a plan to smuggle cell phones into prison and sell them to his fellow inmates. To get the phones in, he bribed a prison guard. Unfortunately for him, the government caught on to his scheme. Cruz was charged with conspiring to violate the Travel Act (by bribing a prison guard) under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Facing up to five more years in prison, he took a plea deal. He pleaded guilty in exchange for the prosecution’s “agree[ment] to recommend … that the total offense level is 14, which is based on a [base offense] level 12 per U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(a)(2) (bribery of a public official) and a two-level increase per U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(1) (more than one bribe).” Though the parties agreed on these calculations, the Probation Office did not. It called for a four-level enhancement because the crime involved “a[] public official in a … sensitive position.” U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(3). That enhancement would make the adjusted offense level 18. The court sentenced him to 51 months in prison, the top of the range. On appeal, Cruz alleges breaches of the plea agreement. In short, the plea agreement barred the prosecution from advocating a total offense level above 14. It could not support the four-level enhancement for bribing a public official in a sensitive job. By supporting the enhancement, the prosecution broke the plea deal. If prosecutors break their agreements, they must make amends. Because the prosecution did not do that here, the Court vacated Cruz’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.

OTHER NEWS

U. S. Sentencing Commission's Acquitted Conduct Work–
The U. S. Sentencing Commission conducted two full days of hearings this past week to receive testimony in response to its proposed amendments to the U. S. Sentencing Guidelines released back in December. We will likely have to wait at least a few weeks before we learn whether and what the Commission's final plans are for this guideline amendment cycle. But the wait will not be too long because the USSC has to submit any and all planned amendments for this year to Congress no later than May 1, 2024.
There are lots of interesting and consequential proposals being considered by the Commission, but its discussion of possible guideline amendments to address so-called aquitted conduct sentencing enhancements is surely the highest-profile concern. This issue has not only been a subject of federal sentencing debate for decades, but it also prompted four Justices last summer in McClinton v. United States to essentially urge the Commission to take some action in order to further inform the Supreme Court's consideration of the constitutional dimensions of this issue. The acquitted conduct issue seems to be the only matter to get any focused attention before and after this past week's USSC hearing.

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

Fair Sentencing/Retroactive Sentence Reductions 4,135 Orders Granted to date.
Elderly Offender Home Confinement 1,247. Approved to date.
First Step Act Releases 30,174 granted to date.
Compassionate Releases/Reduction in Sentences 4,691 granted to date.
Population in RRC’s 8,150.
Population in Home Confinement 5,010.

COMMENT:

This week was another very slow week for favorable federal circuit cases. Hopefully, we will start getting some opinions from the Supreme Court in criminal cases soon like Rahimi.

We are still receiving a great amount of people wanting to find out if they qualify for any of the new USSG Amendments such 814 and 821. We suggest that you opt for a Written Case Evaluation (“WCE”) as soon as possible to make that determination. Amendment 821 became effective on February 1, 2024, and we are already seeing a flood of these so-called motions being filed. We have seen the Form Fill-in Motions, which do not do the job the way it should be done. As such, all of those motions we have seen have been denied. There is a lot more to it than filling out a form. The motion must be personalized. A WCE will also tell you if you have any other relief available.

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.