Older Compilations:

Lower-sentence today argument for career offender.  

Stacked § 924(c) win resulting in a time-served sentence and a 30-year sentence reduction.  Lamar Redfern's pro bono counsel filed a CR motion on behalf of Mr. Redfern in 2021 because his 57-year stacked § 924(c) sentence would result in only a 21-year sentence today.  The court denied the motion on § 3553(a) grounds, primarily because of Mr. Redfern’s numerous disciplinary infractions in prison.  However, in the denial order, the court failed to consider supplemental information Mr. Redfern’s counsel had filed which placed the most recent violations in context. Undeterred, Mr. Redfern’s counsel then filed a motion for reconsideration, and the court scheduled the case for a hearing which, due to prison delays, could not take place until June 2022.  After the hearing, which included statements from several witnesses supporting Mr. Redfern, the court reduced Mr. Redfern’s sentence to time-served.  Mr. Redfern is now back with his family, working several jobs, and has just been offered a full-time job at Fed Ex.  Congratulations to Mr. Redfern and his team.  

Tony Baker (N.D. Okla. July 26, 2022).  Exciting win out of the N.D. Oklahoma for Mr. Baker who was able to get 20 years of his life back.  At age 18, Mr. Baker was involved in a series of robberies, acting primarily as a getaway driver. After turning down a 25-year plea, Mr. Baker went to trial but decided to plead guilty after the second day.  The government’s offer, however, had dramatically increased, and Mr. Baker ended up with a 45-year sentence, driven primarily by stacked § 924(c)s.  Today, Mr. Baker has served 24 years of his sentence and, under current law, would face only a 21-year sentence. Represented by Shanna Rifkin and supported by Elizabeth Blackwood at NACDL, Mike McBride (Mr. Davis’s original trial counsel), and John Russell of GabelGotwals, Mr. Baker argued that the change in the stacked § 924(c) penalties, the fact that he received a harsher sentence than more culpable co-defendants, and Mr. Baker’s young age at the time of the offense and lack of criminal history, were extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting release.  The court agreed, reducing Mr. Baker’s sentence by 20 years to time-served. 

Gerald Payne, 94-CR-150 (N.D. Okla. June 23, 2022).  

Mr. Powell is 68 years old, has served 170 out of a 262 month sentence, and is currently on CARES Act HC. If Mr. Powell was sentenced today, he would not be designated a “career offender.” Pro bono counsel was able to work with the AUSA on this case who ultimately did not oppose the motion as long as the ECR argument was limited to the age of the defendant only, as opposed to the career offender and home confinfement issues.  

Home Confinement Clearinghouse Win!  Mr. Barragan is 52 years old and has completed approximately 16 years, or 75%, of his prison term. He went to trial in 2005 on marijuana conspiracy and 924(c) charges and was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 353 months, which was later reduced to 292 months.  Mr. Barragan entered BOP custody on July 11, 2006 and his projected release date was September 4, 2025. On June 30, 2021, Mr. Barragan was one of the carefully selected inmates that the Bureau of Prisons transferred to home confinement pursuant to its authority under the CARES Act after determining he was a low-risk offender who did not pose a danger to the community and in light of his significant health issues.  He now lives with his sister and has obtained steady employment with a significant wage in a reputable factory, and he has complied with every condition of his release.

After Mr. Barragan obtained pro bono counsel through the Clearinghouse who filed a compassionate release motion on his behalf, the court granted Mr. Barragan’s compassionate release motion finding that Mr. Barragan would be high-risk for illness or death from COVID if he were sent back to prison.  Although the DOJ has rescinded the OLC Memo, the Court noted that the new memo kept open the possibility that the BOP might return individuals  like Mr. Barragan back to prison.   The court also rejected the government’s argument that the motion was moot b/c Mr. Barragan was on home confinement.   Notably, Mr. Barragan had filed two prior cr motions—all pro se—which had been denied. 

Hernandez had a great COVID argument and a great excessive sentence argument, but both were foreclosed by Seventh Circuit opinions (Broadfield and Thacker) before court could rule.  Instead, district court relied on remainign issues--changing attitudes about marijuana--as the extraordinary and compelling reasons and granted a reductionto time-served. 

Case started out as an excessive sentence case (the two §851s that created life mandatory mininum wouldn't apply today), but due to bad case law in Sixth Cicuit, attorney Chloe Smith smartly pivoted to more traditional/COVID arguments. After Judge Danny Reeves in the EDKY denied the motion, Chloe appealed the denial of the CR motion to the Sixth Circuit. 

The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s denial of compassionate release to a 90-year-old, terminally ill, bedridden defendant serving mandatory life for non-violent marijuana offense that would only be subject to a 10-year mandatory minimum today. In reversing, the Sixth Circuit found that the “district court’s analysis of the 18 U.S.C § 3553(a) factors leaves us “ ‘with a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment.’ ”

By overly emphasizing Estrada-Elias’s history of nonviolent crimes, ignoring the low likelihood that Estrada-Elias will re-offend, and mischaracterizing the reality of the gap between Estrada-Elias’s present and prior convictions, the district court engaged in a substantively unreasonable balancing of the § 3553(a) factors and therefore abused its discretion.

The court reversed and remanded for Judge Reeves to make a finding on extraordinary and compelling reasons prong, which it has assumed applied without actually holding as such.