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.  

The Busy Lawyer’s Guide to Hearsay Part II presented by Rene Valladares

The Busy Lawyer’s Guide to Hearsay Part I presented by Rene Valladares

The Busy Lawyer’s Guide to Character Evidence and Impeachment Part I presented by Rene Valladares

The Busy Lawyer’s Guide to Character Evidence and Impeachment Part II presented by Rene Valladares

The Trial Penalty, Plea Bargains, and Saving the 6th Amendment Right to Trial presented by Martín Sabelli and Dan Canon

Federal Bureau of Prisons and Mental Health Treatment presented by John Albanes and Jack Donson