U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Court Wins --
Edition: Week of April 14–18, 2025
SUPREME COURT WATCH: Major Case on Birthright Citizenship
At its April 17 conference, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear three emergency applications related to the Trump administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship. Oral argument is set for May 15, 2025, with a decision expected before the summer recess in late June. Stay tuned for Monday’s Order List.
CIRCUIT COURT VICTORIES: 1st, 4th, 6th, and 7th Circuits Deliver Big WinsUnited States v. Guia-Sendeme, (No. 23-1162)(1st Cir. April 18, 2025) –
Guía-Sendeme ("Guía") appealed from a 72-month sentence imposed for his participation in a venture to smuggle 135 kilograms of cocaine from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico. In
determining Guía's sentence, the district court calculated an advisory guideline sentencing range of 108 to 135 months. Guía challenged that calculation wherein he contended that the court
misapplied the Guidelines") by refusing to apply a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.The Court concluded that the district court must reconsider Guía's eligibility for a
mitigating role adjustment and remanded for resentencing.
United States v. Smith, (No. 22-4338) (4th Cir., April 14, 2025) –
Smith pled guilty to robbery and brandishing a firearm, but the court rushed his sentencing in just 13 minutes and failed to address mitigating factors. The Fourth Circuit found his appeal
waiver invalid and the sentence procedurally unreasonable, vacating it and ordering resentencing before a different judge.
United States v. Avila, (No. 23-4731) (4th Cir., April 14, 2025) –
Avila challenged a sentencing enhancement under § 2G2.2(c)(1). The Court agreed the government failed to prove he caused another person to engage in the illegal conduct. Sentence vacated
and remanded for resentencing.
United States v. Sadrinia, (6th Cir., April 16, 2025) –
Convicted of unlawfully prescribing opioids that resulted in death, Dr. Sadrinia won a reversal after the court ruled the trial judge wrongfully admitted unrelated bad-act evidence.
Conviction vacated, new trial ordered.
United States v. Sorenson, (No. 24-1557) (7th Cir., April 14, 2025) –
The government stretched the Anti-Kickback Statute too far in this case. Sorenson’s payments to advertisers and manufacturers—not healthcare providers—did not violate the statute. The
conviction was reversed due to insufficient evidence.
1. Supervised Release Reforms:
Courts are encouraged to adopt an individualized approach when imposing and managing supervised release, rather than applying it automatically. The amendments distinguish between probation
and supervised release violations, recognizing the rehabilitative purpose of supervised release and allowing for more tailored responses to violations.
2. Drug Offense Guideline Revisions:
Adjustments address the impact of counterfeit pills containing fentanyl, ensuring that sentences more accurately reflect a defendant's role in drug trafficking. The amendments aim to reduce
reliance on drug type and quantity, focusing instead on the defendant's function within the trafficking operation.
3. Firearms Offenses:
New provisions establish appropriate penalties for offenses involving machinegun conversion devices, reflecting the increased danger associated with such weapons.
4. Simplification of Sentencing Procedures:
The Commission has streamlined the "three-step" approach used by courts when applying the guidelines, aiming to make the sentencing process more straightforward and consistent.
5. Resolution of Circuit Conflicts:
The amendments address and resolve certain discrepancies in how different circuit courts interpret and apply sentencing guidelines, promoting uniformity across jurisdictions.
These amendments reflect the Commission's commitment to refining the federal sentencing framework to better serve justice and public safety.
What the Commission did do:
The USSC is amending Guideline § 2D1.1 to cap the drug tables at Level 32 if the defendant had a mitigating role in the offense (that is, received a role reduction under USSG § 3B1.2 for a
minor or minimal role). More critically, the Commission – concerned that courts have applied the § 3B1.2 role reduction too sparingly over the years – is adding commentary directing that a
§ 3B1.2(a) reduction is generally warranted:
If the defendant’s primary function in the offense was plainly among the lowest level of drug trafficking functions, such as serving as a courier, running errands, sending or receiving phone calls or messages, or acting as a lookout… A § 3B1.2(b) reduction is generally warranted if the defendant’s primary function in the offense was performing another low-level trafficking function, such as distributing controlled substances in user-level quantities for little or no monetary compensation or with a primary motivation other than profit (such as being motivated by an intimate or family relationship, or by threats or fear to commit the offense).
This is a welcome change. Sentencing courts have been surprisingly difficult over the years in applying minor role reductions. The Commission is saying that the drug guidelines should focus more on role in the offense and less on drug quantity (a metric that prosecutors have found is easy to manipulate).
Unfortunately, at last Friday’s U.S. Sentencing Commission meeting, the Commission did not vote on the amendment it studied last summer and proposed in January to change the existing 2-level Guidelines enhancement for high methamphetamine purity levels. However, we have been successive in making the argument regarding the 10 to 1 purity difference ratio between “actual meth” and a “mixture of methamphetamine.” Hopefully, this will eventually be added to the amendments.
IS YOUR CONVICTION OR SENTENCE CHALLENGEABLE?Recent Executive Orders and circuit rulings have reopened the door for:
- § 922(g) firearm convictions (non-violent, non-drug priors); and
- Compassionate release motions based on non-retroactive § 403(a) stacking reforms.
Recent wins in the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits show courts are rethinking prior convictions and excessive sentencing on § 922(g) convictions.
Please Provide:
- Contact’s name + telephone number
- Court of conviction
- Case number
We’ll notify your contact if relief may be available. Call: (832) 346-0220.
30 Years. Thousands Helped. Real Results.
We offer professional, affordable evaluations for:
- Direct appeals
- § 2255 / § 2241 motions
- First Step Act + Compassionate Release
- Earned time credit disputes
- Clemency + pardon requests
- Specialized State and Federal post-conviction motions
- Case number