Letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding proposed sentencing reductions.

Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure regarding proposed rule changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Letter to the Federal Bureau of Prisons general counsel regarding proposed sentencing reductions for medical reasons.

Motion for Leave to file amicus brief filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (on petition for a writ of certiorari)

Argument: This case presents an important issue impacting defendants of all incomes convicted of a variety of crimes. The Tenth Circuit held that a sentencing court could not consider the degree to which a defendant’s “earning capacity” would allow him to pay restitution to the victims of his financial fraud when fashioning a sentence. This holding warrants review because it deepens a conflict of authority over whether district courts may sentence a defendant to probation or to a reduced prison term to enable that defendant to earn income to pay restitution and because the Tenth Circuit was wrong on the merits. This case presents an important questions regarding the broad discretion of sentencing judges. While Congress intended restitution be satisfied in every case to the fullest extent possible, the Tenth Circuit’s decision puts this goal at risk by refusing to allow sentencing courts to even consider a defendant’s capacity to pay restitution when imposing a sentence. Because of restitution’s importance within the federal criminal scheme, this Court should grant review to determine whether the capacity to make restitution payments is an appropriate sentencing consideration. This Court’s review also is necessary because the Tenth Circuit’s decision is in significant tension with the historical tradition of broad discretion in the information a court may consider when imposing a sentence.

Brief for Amici Curiae Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, FAMM, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, in Support of Appellant and Reversal

Argument: The governing statute, properly construed, does not authorize BOP to refuse to file a sentencing reduction motion for reasons that Congress expressly assigned to a Court for consideration. BOP has routinely refused to recommend the filing of sentence reduction motions for plainly qualified candidates, with results that are not only unlawful but also tragic. District courts have jurisdiction and authority to require BOP to comply with the statutory scheme and file sentence reduction motions for qualified candidates, so that sentencing judges can decide whether, when and to what extent a sentence should be reduced for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.”