for Family Members and Loved Ones of People in Federal Prison

The Excessive Sentence Project recruits and trains pro bono attorneys to file compassionate release motions on behalf of individuals in federal prison whose sentences are too long, either because they would receive a much lower sentences today due to intervening changes in the law or because their original sentence was simply unjust.  If you think your loved one might qualify, please complete our questionnaire.  Unfortunately, we cannot help everyone, but we are doing everything we can.

Policies and rulings on lengthy imprisonment terms in Colorado.

Para Familiares y Conocidos de Personas en Prisiones Federales

El proyecto para sentencias excesivas recluta y entrena abogados libres de cargos para ayudar con mociones de liberación compasiva en parte de personas en prisiones federales que tienen sentencias excesivas sea porque ellos recibirán sentencias más bajas hoy, dado a los cambios intervinientes en la ley, o porque la sentencia fue simplemente injusta. Si piensas que su conocido califica, por favor llena nuestro cuestionario. Desafortunadamente, no podemos ayudar a todos, pero estamos haciendo todo lo que podemos.  

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and FAMM in Support of Defendant/Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing and/or Rehearing En Banc.

Argument: Appellee Raia’s Petition for Rehearing addresses the discretion of a district court to excuse the 30-day waiting period for compassionate release under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A). On April 2, 2020, the Panel declined to remand this case under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1, stating that remand would be “futile.” In so ruling, the Panel necessarily concluded that the 30-day waiting period cannot be excused or waived. That conclusion was inconsistent with both Supreme Court and Circuit precedent. The ruling creates inconsistency in the Circuit’s treatment of all claims-processing rules, and undermines courts’ equitable authority in a wide range of cases. The30-day waiting period is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule. Courts may excuse noncompliance with that rule absent an express prohibition on doing so. Remand is therefore not “futile.” The Panel’s sua sponte conclusion to the contrary was error. Rehearing should be granted to correct the Panel’s error and confirm that judges are empowered to address “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances even when they arise exigently. At a minimum, the Panel should grant rehearing and order full briefing on this important issue, which was neither decided below nor fully briefed on appeal.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant Thomas Bryant, Jr., Supporting Reversal.

Argument: Sentencing courts have broad discretion to modify a sentence under Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Sentencing courts have authority to grant motions for compassionate release if the defendant does not meet one of the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" described by the Commission. Vesting sentencing courts with discretion to identify "extraordinary and compelling reasons" is consistent with the judge's role at an initial sentencing and does not open any "floodgates." The District Court's order should be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.