ALERT 2020 — Bi-Weekly Newsletter (October 20–31, 2025)

Edition: October 20–31, 2025 | Series: Legal Education Report
Informational Bulletin for Federal Inmates (For Educational Purposes Only)

About This Bulletin

Since 2011, we’ve shared plain-English Spanish summaries of publicly available federal decisions. This bulletin is educational and does not direct or encourage any prohibited conduct, third-party relays, or coded messaging. If content review is needed, we welcome it.

U.S. Supreme Court: November Criminal Docket — With Argument Dates

The Court’s November docket includes several matters that may affect defendants and prisoners. Key arguments:

Rico v. United States (arg. Mon, Nov. 3) — Whether courts may toll (pause) supervised-release time when someone absconds even though the statute does not explicitly say so.
Impact: Determines whether absconding extends the supervised-release clock (and revocation risk).
Hencely v. Fluor Corp. (arg. Mon, Nov. 3) — Soldier’s bombing suit vs. government contractor: is the claim preempted/immunized?
Impact: When contractors (including detention/prison vendors) can be sued despite federal immunity claims.
Landor v. Louisiana DOC (arg. Mon, Nov. 10) — Forced haircut vs. RLUIPA: can inmates obtain money damages for religious-rights violations?
Impact: Whether prison religious violations can carry real monetary consequences.
The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal (arg. Mon, Nov. 10) — Can a private immigration-detention contractor take an early (interlocutory) appeal on immunity?
Impact: Early appeals can slow/derail detainee & prisoner suits; denying them keeps cases moving.
Fernandez v. United States (arg. Wed, Nov. 12) — Compassionate release (§ 3582): can “extraordinary and compelling” include reasons that also resemble § 2255 claims (e.g., trial-penalty disparities, doubts about guilt)?
Impact: Could broaden what judges may consider for sentence reductions.
Rutherford v. United States & Carter v. United States (consolidated) (arg. Wed, Nov. 12) — Can non-retroactive First Step Act cuts (e.g., old § 924(c) stacking) still count as “extraordinary and compelling”?
Impact: Potential relief for people serving pre-FSA stacked terms.

Bottom line: Watch for rulings that could (1) extend supervised-release terms after absconding, (2) unlock damages for religious violations, (3) limit delay tactics by contractors, and (4) expand compassionate-release pathways even when § 2255 is closed.

Court to Decide If Drug-User Gun Ban Is Constitutional (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3))

The Supreme Court agreed to hear United States v. Hemani, a case about whether the federal ban that bars “unlawful users” of controlled substances (including marijuana) from possessing a gun or ammunition is constitutional after Bruen. The Fifth Circuit ruled the ban unconstitutional as applied; DOJ asked the Justices to review. Expect the Court to apply the Bruen test—whether the modern law is consistent with our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation—similar to how it approached Rahimi (upholding disarmament for people under DV restraining orders).

The outcome could be narrow (limited to Hemani’s facts) or broader (guidance for § 922(g)(3) cases generally). Watch this closely if your case involves § 922(g)(3) or parallel “status” prohibitions.

Why this matters to you:
Direct impact: If the Court narrows § 922(g)(3), some people with past or pending “drug-user in possession” cases could get relief. If it upholds the law, expect courts to continue enforcing the ban.
Ripple effects: The Court is also being asked to consider related felon-in-possession issues under § 922(g)(1). Timing may track the Hemani decision.
Flag your case: If your conviction or charge involves § 922(g)(3), or you have a pending appeal/§ 2255 raising Bruen arguments, mark it for review in light of Hemani.

Get help: These are fast-moving, technical issues. We can review your case and help preserve claims. ALERT 2020 will track Hemani and assess how a ruling applies to your situation so you don’t miss your window.

NOTE: On November 1, 2025, the new Amendments will become effective for this cycle of amendments. Unfortunately, none of the amendments are retroactive this year and will only apply to people who have not been sentenced yet.

Recent Federal Appellate Court Decisions (Oct. 20–31, 2025)

United States v. Cole, No. 23-7566-cr (2d Cir. Oct. 27, 2025)

What happened: After a 2021 jury acquitted Neil Cole (former Iconix CEO) of conspiracy, the government tried him again in 2022 on substantive counts—securities fraud, false SEC filings, and audit interference—based on the same “secret deals” revenue-inflation theory. He lost at the second trial.

The ruling: The Second Circuit held double jeopardy (issue preclusion) barred the retrial because the first jury’s not-guilty verdict necessarily decided the key factual question—Cole did not make the alleged “secret deals.” That fact was essential to the government’s proof in the second case, so the court reversed, ordered the district court to vacate the convictions, and dismissed the indictment.

Key takeaways (plain English): If a first jury acquits you, the government cannot re-try you on new charges that depend on the same fact the jury already rejected. Courts ask whether the prior acquittal “necessarily decided” the fact (see Yeager v. United States). If yes, later charges requiring that fact are out. Attempts to read the first verdict narrowly can fail if they are inconsistent with the record.

Why it matters: If you were acquitted on any count, a later prosecution (or retrial) hinging on the same core factual theory may be barred—useful for appeals, § 2255 motions, or Rule 33 motions where sequential prosecutions overlap on key facts.

United States v. Tooley, No. 24-5286 (6th Cir. Oct. 23, 2025)

The Sixth Circuit vacated a felon-in-possession sentence after the court wrongly treated Kentucky second-degree manslaughter (death caused “wantonly”) as a “crime of violence” under USSG § 2K2.1(a)(3)/§ 4B1.2(a). Applying the categorical approach and Borden v. United States, the panel held Kentucky “wantonness” equals MPC recklessness and therefore cannot satisfy the force clause. Counting it was plain error. Result: sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Why it matters: Reckless/wanton offenses generally do not qualify as “Crimes of Violence” after Borden. If your guideline range relied on a reckless/wanton predicate (especially under § 2K2.1(a)(3)), this can support resentencing arguments.

United States v. Huerta, No. 25-1050 (10th Cir. Oct. 29, 2025)

The Tenth Circuit reversed the denial of a suppression motion, holding officers lacked reasonable suspicion to frisk a passenger during a traffic stop. A “hunch”-based link to a shooting suspect and passengers simply walking toward a gas-station store did not justify a pat-down, and the government failed to prove inevitable discovery.

Outcome: Suppression granted on appeal; case remanded for further proceedings; indictment stands.

United States v. Ford, No. 23-1400 (10th Cir. Oct. 28, 2025)

The Tenth Circuit held the 25-year mandatory minimum in 18 U.S.C. § 3559(f)(2) does not automatically apply to federal kidnapping convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1201 involving children. Because § 3559(f) uses the general “crime of violence” definition in 18 U.S.C. § 16, and § 1201 kidnapping can be committed by non-force means (like “inveigling” or “decoying”), kidnapping is not categorically a § 16(a) “crime of violence.” The court rejected the government’s view that § 3559(f)(2) deems all § 1201 kidnappings crimes of violence.

Outcome: Vacated and remanded for resentencing without the mistaken 25-year mandatory-minimum constraint.

United States v. Baker, Nos. 23-4099 & 24-4019 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2025)

The Tenth Circuit held a creditor’s right to be paid money is “property” under the wire-fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343). But the court reversed Count II because the government failed to prove the relevant internet communication crossed state lines—using a website in the same state is not enough; merely “using the internet” does not automatically satisfy the interstate-commerce element.

Result: Count II reversed; case remanded for resentencing.

Takeaways: (1) Fraud to frustrate debt collection can be wire fraud, but mere nonpayment is not; and (2) for § 1343, prosecutors must prove the wire actually crossed state lines.

About the Written Case Evaluation (WCE) — Educational Review

A WCE is a deeper, professional review of your record from arrest to today. You receive: (1) a clear procedural summary; (2) a factual overview; and (3) an explanation of which remedies commonly fit cases with similar facts—plus timing considerations.

To apply for a WCE, include: your name & Register No.; court of conviction; case number; and a reliable family phone number so scheduling is possible through approved channels.

Outside Contact for Families (Documents / Scheduling)

Email: Newsletter@federal-alert.com | Tel: (832) 346-0220

Compliance Note

This bulletin summarizes public decisions for educational use. It does not provide directives for action inside any facility, and it does not use coded language, third-party relays, or prohibited content. If facility staff request wording changes to meet security policies, we will cooperate.