United States v. Shires, Karlosky, and Bond 1:19-cr-10043

United States v. Shires, Karlosky, and Bond 1:19-cr-10043

United States v. Shires, Karlosky, and Bond 1:19-cr-10043

Motions to suppress in U.S. v. Karlosky, et al

Memorandum Granting Compassionate Release 

Argument: In Feb. 2000, a jury convicted R.V. Young of five counts of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d), and five counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). All told, Young was sentenced to 1,107 months (92.25 years) imprisonment. Judge Trauger held that: (1) the “drastic change” effected by the First Step Act's amendment of the statute that authorized a longer sentence for a second conviction than a first for using a firearm during a crime of violence itself constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce Young’s sentence; (2) Young’s age, health conditions, and 19 years in prison constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce his sentence; and (3) that a hearing was required for the district court to consider the relevant sentencing factors to determine the appropriate sentence.

Motion for Compassionate Release (Dec. 21, 2020)

Gov Response in Opposition (Jan. 15, 2021)

Def's Reply (Jan. 29, 2021)

Order Granting Compassionate Release (Mar. 30, 2021)

Argument: Hybrid second look/obesity as risk factor victory for Mr. Thornton, sentenced to life at a young age for his part in a drug conspiracy and related murder. While the Order is pretty spare, this is a partial reduction win, from life down to 30 years. The “primary reason appeared to be sentencing disparities among co-defendants and the change in sentencing law from Booker” The Government also conceded E&C based on obesity and Covid.

Order granting motion for compassionate release. 

Argument: Judge Lawson held that: (1) Mr. McDonel’s mandatory 100-year sentence for multiple firearm brandishing 924(c) offenses constituted extraordinary and compelling circumstance allowing sentence reduction, and (2) statutory sentencing factors supported sentence reduction.

Opinion and Order granting compassionate release. 

Argument: Stacked 924(c) case.  Originally sentenced to 55 years on multiple armed bank robbery and 924c counts.  “The court finds that defendant’s health concerns, his multiple accomplishments in prison and significant rehabilitation efforts, and his strong family and community support, including offers of employment, are sufficient, when considered in combination, to constitute an extraordinary reason for compassionate release.”   Notably, court would not consider the non-retroactive change in 924(c) statute as an extraordinary and compelling reason, “[h]owever, at the discretion of the court, this change in the law can be considered later in addressing whether a reduction in sentence in warranted under the sentencing factors in §3553(a).”

Opinion and Order

Argument: 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.  

Order Granting Compassionate Release 

Argument: Finding a disproportionately long sentence to be an extraordinary and compelling reason for release.

"The sentence in this case is, save one other, the most lopsided and disproportionately severe sentence the Court has had to mete out in more than 20 years on the bench. The changes in the law and their potential mitigating effect on McDonel’s sentence easily qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons to afford relief when considered with the other factors discussed below." 

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in support of Appellant.

Argument: The Sixth Circuit should join eight of its sister circuits in recognizing that collateral-attack waivers are not valid when their enforcement would result in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the Court should refuse to enforce Mr. Jimenez’s collateral attack waiver to the extent that it precludes him from challenging the district court’s use of an invalid and unconstitutional prior conviction to enhance his sentence.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent. 

Argument: Contrary to the government’s position, there was nothing “usual, average, or normal” about the sea change in sentencing law caused by Booker. The Sixth Circuit should explicitly acknowledge that a district court has the discretion to consider, as part of its “extraordinary and compelling” analysis, inappropriately harsh sentences received by some defendants in the unconstitutional pre-Booker regime.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent.

Argument: In enacting the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), Congress created a safety valve that allows a sentence in any case to be terminated early under extraordinary and compelling circumstances, regardless of whether the sentence was originally imposed pursuant to a mandatory sentencing provision.  This is clear from the statute’s text, its legislative history, and the practice of federal judges around the country. The Sixth Circuit should explicitly acknowledge that the District Court acted within the authority Congress gave it when it granted compassionate release to Mr. John Bass who was serving a “mandatory minimum” of life in prison “without release.”

Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant Wayne Wilkerson.

Argument: The district court erred by not requiring mens rea, which is a cornerstone requirement for criminal liability and punishment. The district court erred in premising the fraud convictions on non-disclosure absent any cognizable duty to disclose.

Brief of the Federal Public and Community Defenders for the Judicial Districts of the Sixth Circuit and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Reversal.

Argument: The career offender guideline is problematic. The impact of the career offender guidelines was even more severe before the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. The severity of the career offender guideline does not advance the purposes of sentencing. The career offender guideline has an unwarranted adverse impact on Black defendants. A career offender sentence creates rather than avoids unwarranted disparity in the ordinary case. Courts must take special care when considering the need to avoid unwarranted disparity for those deemed career offenders and eligible for First Step Act relief.