Order granting motion for compassionate release.

Argument: Anthony Jones pleaded guilty to several counts, including five 924(c) counts. He was sentenced to 357 months, which the court reduced to time served in granting his motion, a total reduction of 15 months.

On retroactivity:  “It cannot be denied that FSA § 403reflects a “legislative rejection” of stacking and a “legislative declaration of what level of punishment is adequate” for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Redd, 444 F.Supp.3d at 723-24. Though the statute did not provide automatic relief to defendants like Mr. Jones, it has in no uncertain terms established that sentences like Mr. Jones's “unfair and unnecessary.” Id.”

On finality of sentencing:

“The Court likewise rejects the Government's objection that reducing a defendant's sentence based on subsequent legal changes would “undermine the finality of sentences.” Opp. at 9. Although “the principle of finality” is indisputably “essential to the operation of our criminal justice system,” Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), it is not without exceptions. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) are “acts of lenity”; as such, they “are not constrained by the general policies underlying initial sentencing or even plenary resentencing proceedings.” United States v. Padilla-Diaz, 862 F.3d 856, 861 (9th Cir. 2017). In other words, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) represents Congress's judgment that the generic interest in finality must give way in certain individual cases.”

Amicus Curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Argument: Violating Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right by seizing and searching all of their communications constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Violating Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right by seizing and searching all of their communications constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The government’s destruction of the evidence of its wrongful search and seizure means that the injury to these other Constitutional rights cannot be remediated and must be presumed. The fact that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs have been undermined by the surveillance at issue in this case supports the finding that this surveillance has been made in violation of the Fourth Amendment. When the Fourth Amendment falls, so do the Fifth and Sixth. This Court should therefore find the surveillance at issue in this case unlawful.

Brief of Amicus Curiae of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: Wholesale collection of telephony records by the government deprives clients of their right to counsel by vitiating the confidentiality of attorney-client communications and attorney files. The strong protections afforded the confidentiality of legal work include the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and the duty of confidentiality. Bulk seizure violates confidentiality rules and impairs the right to a defense. The government’s current practices eviscerate FISA’s relevance and minimization requirements.