NACDL is advocating for improvements to Oregon's compassionate release laws. 

Order

Argument: Stewart was convicted after trial of bank robbery and two counts of § 924(c) and sentenced to nearly 42 years. He had served 13 years (and, including a MDNC case, a total of 28 years) at time 3582(c)(1)(A) motion filed.

Court found following intervening changes in law to be ECR: guidelines are no longer mandatory (Booker); second 924(c) charge would carry only 5-year consecutive sentence, not 20 years; Stewart would not be a career offender today because predicate NC offense does not qualify under Simmons. Court notes it is not "correcting" a sentence; rather it is considering "changes in sentencing law—even nonretroactive ones—in assessing whether a defendant has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction in his sentence." Court also notes Stewart's age (56) and Stewart's hypertension, and the rampant COVID outbreak at Ft. Dix.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Argument: Both medical issues and 924(c) stacking were factors. Sentencing court noted at the time that stacking was unjust, but was mandatory. FSA passed while resentencing appeal was pending – 7th Cir. found that provisions did not apply because they were not retroactive. Change in law and disparity between Sparkman’s sentence and that of more-culpable codefendants who did receive the benefit of amendments to 924(c) were relevant.

Supplement to Pro Se CR Motion (Apr. 22, 2021)

Response (May 24, 2021)

Reply (June 1, 2021)

Def's Notice of Supp Authority (June 2, 2021)

Order (June 8, 2021)

Argument: Sloan was originally sentenced to Life plus 540 months after trial on several crack conspiracy and gun counts, Sentence was later reduced to 235 months on drug counts and remained at 540 months on 3 stacked 924(c)s. Sloan has now served 30 years and has 34 years remaining.  Defense argues ECR exists because of following intervening changes in law:

1)  DOJ's Robinson Memo "adopting practice of basing each Section 924(c) in an indictment upon a separate predicate offense";

2) pre-Booker, so guidelines were mandatory at time of sentencing

3) SCOTUS prohibited mandatory LWOP for juvenile offenders as client was between 15-20 during conspiracy and is 48 years old now. 

4) SCOTUS decided Dean v. US, stating district courts can and should consider the mandatory consecutive nature of 924(c) sentences 

5) Prior to FSA changing the 924(c) stacking provisions, which would not result in a 180-month sentence, rather thana 540-month sentence

The Court found ECR existed because Sloan’s original 540-month sentence based on stacked § 924(c)s would result in a 180-month sentence today.  Other supporting factors include strong evidence of rehabilitation (47 programs and work assessments, earned GED, two minor infractions in 30 years of prison); he was juvenile when he committed the crimes and 22 when sentenced; and his strong support network and community. Court reduces sentence to time-served plus 14 days. 

Memorandum 

Argument: Craig Scott was serving a sentence of over 87 months on three counts of robbery and one count of conspiracy, plus a consecutive 45 years for three 924(c) counts. The court commuted his sentence to time served (“almost 25 years”) on the basis that the change in law regarding stacked 924(c)s was an extraordinary and compelling reason.

“Multiple district courts have reasoned that “the First Step Act’s change in how sentences should be calculated when multiple § 924(c) charges are included in the same indictment constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).” See United States v. Owens, No. 97-CR-2546-CAB, ECF 93 at 4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2020) (collecting cases). The court agrees with the reasoning of these courts.”

Memorandum and Order 

Argument: Reducing sentence for defendant with a 2041 release date to time-served for a combination of reasons: a newly diagnosed serious cardiac condition with poor stats for 5-year survival, 924(c) unstacking, recent cooperation, and COVID risk. Also a post-vaccination COVID grant (although the vaccination status is only mentioned in the motions). Notably, this case is a lesson in persistence. The counsel or record filed, lost, appealed, won post-Maumau, got an expert, re-filed in the district court, briefed it all some more, and voila—the client is home) 

Motion (June 23, 2021)

Goverment Response (Aug. 12, 2021)

Reply (Aug. 27, 2021)

Notice of Supplemental Authority (Oct. 14, 2021)

Order Granting Release (Oct. 29, 2021)

Argument: At the age of 25, Mr. Richardson and others committed several bank robberies.  Mr. Richardson was convicted of two bank robbery offenses and two § 924(c) offenses resulting in a combined sentence of 405 months, or almost 34 years prison. Due to the First Step Acts changes in the § 924(c) stacking provision, were he sentenced today, Mr. Richardson would likely receive only a 189-month sentence.  In its Order, the Court noted that Mr. Richardson had served more than 210 months in prison, where he had successfully completed numerous education programs and work assignments. The court also relied on Mr. Richardson’s lack of a serious criminal history, relative youth at the time of his offenses, his release plan to a stable home, and the 18-year disparity between the § 924(c) sentence he originally received and the sentence he would receive today.  The court then reduced Mr. Richardson’s sentence from 405 months to time-served plus 14 days.  Instead of a release date of 2035, Mr. Richardson will soon be home with his family.  

Memorandum Opinion granting sentence reduction 

Argument: Derrick Redd was sentenced to 603 months based on three stacked 924(c)s and robbery offenses. Court held that: (1) Mr. Redd had exhausted his administrative remedies; (2) extraordinary and compelling reasons existed to warrant reduction in his sentence; (3) reduction in Mr. Redd’s sentence was consistent with applicable policy statements; and (4) reduction of his sentence from 45 years to 15 years was appropriate.

Motion (July 17, 2020)

Gov Response (Sept. 4, 2020)

Reply (Sept. 29, 2020)

Def’s Notice of Filing Supp Authority (Feb. 15, 2021)

Opinion & Order (Apr. 14, 2021)

Argument: 20-year-old involved in robbery and carjacking which led to a hostage situation and a shootout with police sentenced to 481 months. 

There is no doubt that there is a gross disparity between the sentence Rahim received in 2005 and the sentence he would receive today after the passage of the First Step Act. To quantify that more precisely, he faces 18 additional years in prison as a result of the second § 924(c) charge that would not be permissible today. This difference is an extraordinary and compelling reason to provide the relief sought by Rahim.

3553(a) factors also supported relief: young at time of offense; grew up around violence; was working as an EMT; significant rehabilitation in prison. 

Motion for Compassionate Release 

Argument: Requesting reduction to time-served for defendant who has served 27 or his 35-year sentence driving primarily by stacked 924(c)s. Extraordinary and compelling reasons include the significant disparity between his current sentence and likely sentence today on stacked 924(c)s; the lengthy mandatory sentence he is currently serving; the disparity in sentence with his co-defendants; and his extensive rehabiliation.  

Order granting sentence reduction. 

Argument: David Lyle was convicted at trial of 8 counts, including four 924(c) counts, and sentenced to a total sentence of 1,141 months’ imprisonment. Lyle sought relief on two separate and independent grounds: directly based on retroactive application of the First Step Act’s amendments to 924(c), and under compassionate release on the argument that the discrepancy constituted an “extraordinary and compelling circumstance.” The court resentenced Lyle to a final total of 493 months.

Regarding the original sentence:

“The Court followed the law in effect at the time. Nevertheless, since that time, Congress has recognized that perhaps it either went too far or more likely that it never intended § 924(c) to be interpreted as it was. That being the case, the Court finds that there is no compelling reason not to grant Lyle's motion and there are many compelling factors in its favor.”

Memorandum Opinion. 

Argument: Paul Kratsas had a mandatory life sentence imposed in 1993. His case differs from those with stacked § 924(c) sentences because, today, a life sentence could still be imposed. Importantly, the sentencing judge “lamented his duty to impose the mandatory life sentence and stated that, if sentencing pursuant to the then mandatory Guidelines, which were 360 months to life, he would impose a sentence of 360 months and not life.” One of the “original prosecutors, now in private practice, support[ed] the request for immediate release.” Judge Chasanow found that those factors as well as Kratsas’ “current dangerousness and the § 3553(a) factors support[ed] granting release.”

Addendum to Motion (Aug. 6, 2020)

Motion for Reconsideration (Nov. 6, 2020) 

Order (Dec. 17, 2020)

Argument: Motion for reconsideration; court had previously denied motion in October based on lack of medical condition; no grating MRF due to sentencing disparity based on 924(c) stacking. Discussion is relatively light – Owen was originally a co-defendant of McCoy (whose case was heard by the 4th Cir.)

Order (Nov. 22, 2021)

Motion (Nov. 8, 2021)

Argument: Mr. Gregory was sentenced to a mandatory 32 years on two stacked 924(c)s convictions stemming from the robberies of two Oklahoma pharmacies. NACDL pro bono attorneys filed a compassionate release motion on Mr. Gregory’s behalf arguing that a reduced sentence is appropriate because, if sentenced today, Mr. Gregory’s mandatory minimum would be only 14 years.  Only two after the motion was filed, the district court reduced Mr. Gregory’s sentence to time-served, finding extraordinary and compelling reasons due to his conviction at a relatively young age (26), the disparity between his sentence and those sentenced for similar crimes after the FSA, his rehabilitation efforts, and the environment he would enter upon release.  The court also noted that Mr. Gregory was a victim of drug addiction, which motivated the robberies: “While the Court obviously does not excuse what he did, there is no doubt that Mr. Gregory, like so many others in this country, was, at least in part, a victim of his addiction to opioid pain killers. This addiction was the main force that drove him to rob two pharmacies at gunpoint.” Due to the work of his pro bono attorneys, Mr. Gregory was able to spend his first Thanksgiving in 15 years at home with his family. 

Motion (Apr. 30, 2021)

Order (June 2, 2021)

Argument: Davis, along with three co-defendants (Whitener/Cecil Jackson/Orrin Jackson) are the first "excessive sentence” compassionate release wins out of the Western District of North Carolina.  Each defendant's sentence was reduced to time-served after being convicted in 1990 of stacked § 924c counts, with sentences ranging from 660 to 1,620 months. Looking at factors such as their youth at the time of the convictions, their rehabilitation efforts in BOP, and family and community support, as well as the FSA changes to 924c sentencing, the court reduced their sentences to time served.