Motion to Extend Time to File Reply Brief

Motion to File Reply Brief in Excess of Word Limit

Reply (April 10, 2021)

Order (June 25, 2021)

Argument: Mr. Curry was originally sentenced to life in prison in 2006 after a jury convicted of multiple drug counts and convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). After two resentencings, Mr. Curry was still subject to a 41 ½ year sentence, driven primarily by two stacked § 924(c) convictions in his case. His release date was projected as 2041 when Mr. Curry would be 65 years old. Judge had previously denied pre-McCoy. 

Post McCoy, volunteers with NACDL's Excessive Sentence Project filed a CR Reply (gov. had already responded to pro se motion) arguing that First Step Act’s changes to the § 924(c) stacking penalty would result in Mr. Curry receiving a much lower sentence today for the same convictions.  Court granted motion, citing the “gross disparity” between the sentence Mr. Curry originally received and the sentence he would receive today along with his extensive rehabilitation while incarcerated.  The district court reduced Mr. Curry’s sentence from 500 months to 240 months.  Release date will now be 2022.

Order granting motion to reduce sentence 

Argument: Angela Beck, who was serving a sentence for drug and firearms offenses, filed a motion under the First Step Act of 2018 seeking the reduction of her sentence and immediate compassionate release due to invasive cancer and the Bureau of Prison's history of indifference to her treatment. Judge Eagles held that: (1) BOP’s gross mismanagement of medical care for Ms. Beck’s invasive breast cancer qualified as an extraordinary and compelling reason to support the reduction of her sentence and a compassionate release, and (2) reduction of Ms. Beck’s sentence to time served, approximately 76 months, for drug and firearms offenses was sufficient to serve the purposes of punishment.

Order granting compassionate release: pre-COVID compassionate release case, granting compassionate release where defendant had invasive cancer and BOP had shown indifference to defendant’s treatment.

United States Court of Appeals for The Fourth Circuit: United States of America v. Blue;

Appeal from the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina 

Brief Amici Curiae of the National Consumer Law Center, Demos, The National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Employment Law Project, and the Southern Coalition for Social Justice.

Argument: Fair and accurate reporting of criminal record information is essential to protecting individuals’ rights and opportunities. Background checks contain a high rate of errors with deleterious impacts on consumers. Creation of a Sec. 1681(a)(y) exclusion would remove nearly all FCRA protections from employment criminal records reports. Judicial enactment of a § 1681a(y) FCRA exclusion for every circumstance in which the employer has a “policy against employing those with certain criminal histories” – every employer who uses a criminal background check – would swallow the rule itself.