ALERT UPDATE 2020 – WEEKLY REPORT U.S. Supreme Court, Circuit Court Wins and Other News
Edition: Week of April 21-25, 2025
SUPREME COURT WATCH
The Justices met for their April 25, 2025 today. The next schedule Order list will be forthcoming on May 5, 2025.
CIRCUIT COURT VICTORIES: 1st, 6th, 8th and 11th Circuits Deliver Big WinsUnited States v. Guía-Sendeme, (23-1162)(1st Cir. April 18, 2025)– Dionel Guía-Sendeme ("Guía") appeals 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. For his role in operating a small vessel to transport the narcotics, Guía pleaded guilty to, inter alia, importing and possessing with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. In determining Guía's sentence, the district court calculated an advisory guideline sentencing range of 108 to 135 months. Guía challenged that calculation. He contended that the court misapplied the Guidelines by refusing to apply a mitigating role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. In sentencing Guía, the court focused solely on mitigating considerations, including, inter alia, that Guía was a nonviolent, first-time offender who played a limited role in the venture. Given that (1) the court identified no aggravating factors and (2) Guía may, on remand, obtain an appreciably lower advisory guideline range, the Court was unable to conclude that there is no "possibility" of a "more lenient sentence" after a remand to correctly apply a mitigating role analysis 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. Mooney, (No. 24-3270)(6th Cir. April 25, 2025)– Jeremy Mooney appealed his conviction. Mooney also appealed the procedural reasonableness of his resulting sentence. Mooney argued that the district court failed to make sufficient findings for an obstruction-of-justice enhancement and therefore improperly imposed the enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Due to this failure, Mooney contended that resentencing is necessary. The Court agreed and vacated his sentence and remanded the case for further proceedings with regard to the enhancement for obstruction of justice.
United States v. Grubb, (No. 24-1496)(8th Cir. April 21, 2025)– A grand jury charged Jacqusyn Grubb with unlawful possession of a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Grubb moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the statutory prohibition violated his right under the Second Amendment as construed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The district court denied the motion. However, this Court concluded that the ruling was premature because Grubb’s challenge to the indictment could not properly be resolved without a trial on the merits. In light of our decision in United States v. Turner, 842 F.3d 602 (8th Cir. 2016), the Court remanded the case so that Grubb may choose either to adhere to his guilty plea and forego appellate review or move to vacate his guilty plea and proceed to trial on the original charge.
United States v. Rivers, (No. 22-14159)(11th Cir. April 25, 2025)– After a jury trial, Davion Rivers appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and his 188-month prison sentence. Rivers argues that the district court erroneously denied his motions to suppress (1) the firearm found on his person and (2) a spent shotgun shell from his residence. Based on Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), Rivers contends that the district court reversibly erred in sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) because a jury did not determine whether his prior serious drug offenses occurred on “occasions different from one another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). After careful review of the record and the briefs, and with the benefit of oral argument, the Court vacated his sentence under Erlinger, and remanded for resentencing
OTHER NEWSTHIRD CIR RIGHTS CUIT’S DECISION IN RANGE NOW FINAL: NONVIOLENT FELONS MAY REGAIN GUN--
In a significant Second Amendment ruling, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held in Range v. Attorney General that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)—which bars felons from possessing firearms—is
unconstitutional as applied to individuals with nonviolent convictions like Bryan Range.
Range’s only disqualifying offense was a 25-year-old conviction for making a false statement to obtain food stamps. Since then, his record includes only minor infractions like traffic
tickets. Applying the Supreme Court’s rulings in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi, the en banc Third Circuit found that Range is still among
“the people” protected by the Second Amendment. The Court concluded there is no historical tradition supporting a lifetime firearm ban for someone like Range who poses no danger to public
safety.
Although the Third Circuit reached this decision in June 2023, the government sought Supreme Court review. When the Rahimi decision was issued, the Supreme Court remanded all pending Second
Amendment cases—including Range—for reconsideration in light of the new ruling. However, in late 2024, the Third Circuit reaffirmed its original holding, finding Rahimi did not alter its
analysis.
The DOJ was granted an extension to consider seeking Supreme Court review but let the April 22, 2025 deadline pass without filing. As a result, the Range decision is now final and binding
within the Third Circuit.
This outcome opens the door for individuals with old, nonviolent felony convictions in the Third Circuit to challenge their firearm bans under § 922(g)(1), though procedural barriers remain.
The DOJ’s decision not to appeal may reflect a strategic choice to wait for a more favorable case—possibly Duarte—or a broader policy shift in light of evolving Second Amendment
jurisprudence under Bruen and Rahimi.
Regardless of the reason, Range marks a clear circuit split on the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1), and a milestone for Second Amendment rights restoration for nonviolent offenders—at least
within the Third Circuit.
Former Las Vegas city councilwoman and Nevada lawmaker Michele Fiore has been pardoned by President Donald Trump, despite her conviction on
federal wire fraud charges. Fiore was found guilty in October of six counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy after prosecutors said she misused over $70,000 intended for a memorial
statue of a slain police officer—spending funds instead on plastic surgery, rent, and her daughter’s wedding.
Fiore, 54, was awaiting sentencing next month and faced the possibility of decades in prison. Her request for a new trial had just been denied days before the pardon was issued Wednesday.
In a Facebook statement, Fiore thanked Trump and alleged a decade-long conspiracy by the U.S. government and select media to destroy her life. The White House confirmed the pardon but
offered no further comment.
Fiore, a vocal Trump supporter without a law degree, was appointed judge in Nye County in 2022 after losing a bid for state treasurer. Though elected to a judicial seat last year, she was
suspended without pay amid her legal issues. Fiore now says she plans to return to the bench, pending a decision by the state’s Judicial Discipline Commission.
Trump’s recent clemency decisions have focused heavily on white-collar offenders, according to the Justice Department’s clemency list. The most recent dozen grants, including Fiore’s, have all involved fraud-related convictions. One notable exception was a March commutation for Jean Pinkard, convicted of opioid distribution—an action possibly influenced by clemency advocate Alice Marie Johnson.
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