Memorandum Opinion 

Argument: Order reducing a 2002 mandatory life sentence for an 851 career offender/mandatory life client who was convicted at trial of conspiracy pwid/FIP. Judge Messitte “found that the disparity between the life sentence Mr. Sappleton received and the sentence he would receive under the law today established an “extraordinary and compelling” reason to reduce his sentence under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A).  Second, he held that Mr. Sappleton was eligible for relief under Section 404 of the First Step Act and that the Court “can, and indeed should apply the current section 851 (i.e., as amended by section 401 of the First Step Act) in imposing a new sentence.” Judge Messitte explained that “[a]pplying defunct statutory penalties would [] be inconsistent with the text of section 404(b), which expressly permits the court to  ‘impose a reduced sentence.’” 

Order granting motion to reduce sentence 

Argument: Order reducing a 2002 mandatory life sentence for an 851 career offender/mandatory life client who was convicted at trial of conspiracy pwid/FIP. Judge Messitte “found that the disparity between the life sentence Mr. Sappleton received and the sentence he would receive under the law today established an “extraordinary and compelling” reason to reduce his sentence under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A).  Second, he held that Mr. Sappleton was eligible for relief under Section 404 of the First Step Act and that the Court “can, and indeed should apply the current section 851 (i.e., as amended by section 401 of the First Step Act) in imposing a new sentence.” Judge Messitte explained that “[a]pplying defunct statutory penalties would [] be inconsistent with the text of section 404(b), which expressly permits the court to  ‘impose a reduced sentence.’” 

Motion (Aug.26, 2021)

Order (Aug. 27, 2021)

Argument: Joint agreement with government, notable because the sentencing change in this case was the removal of the recency criminal-history point from the guidelines, which had moved defendant up a criminal history category; also includes a section 404/crack retro argument because he was eligible, and argued the GL change there too. He had also served a long time and had good equities, and that guideline hook was enough to get some traction. Second look: not just for statutory changes.”

Motion (Aug 26, 2021)

Order (Auf. 27, 2021)

Argument: (joint agreement with government, notable because the sentencing change in this case was the removal of the recency criminal-history point from the guidelines, which had moved defendant up a criminal history category; also includes a section 404/crack retro argument because he was eligible, and argued the GL change there too. He had also served a long time and had good equities, and that guideline hook was enough to get some traction. Second look: not just for statutory changes.”

Brief of FAMM, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the National Association of Federal Defenders as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Trial judges must consider a defendant’s post-sentencing conduct and intervening legal developments when exercising their Section 404 authority to “Impose A Reduced Sentence.” Evidence of post-sentencing conduct and intervening changes in law significantly affects district courts’ exercise of Section 404 sentencing discretion—producing fairer and more appropriate sentences. The text and statutory context of the First Step Act compel consideration of post-sentencing conduct and intervening legal developments.