ALERT UPDATE 2020 – WEEKLY REPORT U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Court Wins
Edition: Week of May 5-9, 2025
SUPREME COURT WATCH
The May 5, 2025 Order list did not contain any new cert grants. The Justices will held conferences on Monday and Tuesday of this week. The Justices will hold their next conference on May 15, 2025 and we expect orders and opinions also on that date.
CIRCUIT COURT VICTORIES: 3rd, 4th AND 10th Circuits Deliver Big Wins--United States v. Barkers-Woode and Mensah, (Nos. 22-2355 & 22-2621)(3rd Cir. May 7, 2025)– A jury convicted Patrick Barkers-Woode and Nana Mensah of mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit aggravated identity theft. Both Barkers-Woode and Mensah raised several challenges related to their sentencings. Barkers-Woode additionally challenged the District Court’s decision to admit certain evidence during his trial. Both Barkers-Woode and Mensah argued that the District Court erred by applying a 14-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) based on a calculated intended loss of $595,399.76 in light of this Court’s decision in United States v. Banks, 55 F.4th 246 (3d Cir. 2022). The Court reversed the orders of the District Court applying § 2B1.1(b)(1) based on intended loss and remand for it to recalculate the Guidelines range using actual loss and resentence accordingly.
United States v. Smith, (No. 22-4338)(4th Cir. May 6, 2025)– Quamaine Donell Smith (“Smith”) pled guilty to robbery and using/brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. In his written plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal his sentence. The district court subsequently sentenced Appellant to 144 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Smith argued that his appeal waiver is invalid because the district court failed to properly conduct the plea hearing and because the appeal waiver was not knowing and voluntary. Therefore, Smith urged the Court to vacate his sentence as procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to acknowledge his non-frivolous mitigation arguments or provide an explanation for the sentence. Here, the sentencing “discussion” by the district court was scant. The court simply stated, “[t]he Court has considered that range as well as other relevant factors set forth in the advisory sentencing Guidelines and those set forth in 18 [U.S.C. §] 3553(a).” The court did not provide any individualized analysis because it did not apply the § 3553(a) factors to Smith’s circumstances, entirely ignored his arguments, and provided no explanation or basis whatsoever for its sentence. Therefore, the court’s explanation was inadequate because it does not reflect that the court “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decision-making authority in light of § 3553(a).”The Court held that Smith’s appeal waiver was not knowingly and intelligently made and that enforcing the appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the Court vacated the sentence as procedurally unreasonable and remanded for reassignment to a different district court judge for further proceedings.
United States v. Ward, (No. 23-7088)(10th Cir. May 6, 2025)--This case involves a criminal defendant’s constitutional protection from the government’s use of post-arrest silence. Upon making arrests, law-enforcement officers must tell suspects that (1) they can stay silent and (2) whatever they say can be used against them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467–69 (1966). But what happens when suspects are only partially silent, talking about some things and not others? Can the government use the partial silence against these suspects after telling them that they can remain silent? The Courted answer no, concluding that this use of partial silence violates the due process right to a fair trial. This case stemmed from a violent attack on three men as they returned from a fishing trip in Indian Country. Ward admitted after his arrest that he had participated in the attack with Mr. Armenta. At trial, however, Ward attributed his participation to fears for his own safety because of threats from Armenta. At trial, the prosecutor questioned Ward about his failure to tell law-enforcement officers about the threats and argued in closing that this omission suggested that Ward had lied at trial. As such, Ward testified only about what he had told the officers and the prosecutor did nothing more than challenge Ward’s credibility. With Ward’s credibility at the heart of his duress defense, the cross-examination about his post-arrest silence affected his substantial rights. Accordingly, the Court vacated his convictions and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
IS YOUR CONVICTION OR SENTENCE CHALLENGEABLE?Recent Executive Orders and circuit rulings have reopened the door for:
- § 922(g) firearm convictions (non-violent, non-drug priors); and
- Compassionate release motions based on non-retroactive § 403(a) stacking reforms.
Recent wins in the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits show courts are rethinking prior convictions and excessive sentencing on § 922(g) convictions.
Please Provide:
- Contact’s name + telephone number
- Court of conviction
- Case number
We’ll notify your contact if relief may be available. Call: (832) 346-0220.
30 Years. Thousands Helped. Real Results.
We offer professional, affordable evaluations for:
- Direct appeals
- § 2255 / § 2241 motions
- First Step Act + Compassionate Release
- Earned time credit disputes
- Clemency + pardon requests
- Specialized State and Federal post-conviction motions
- Case number