U. S. Supreme Court Happenings, Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions and Other News for the Week of April 8-12, 2024--
U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week ending April 12, 2024 –
In April of 2024, the Justices will hold conferences on April 12, 19 and 25, 2024. Oral argument is scheduled for April 15-17 and April 22-25, 2024.
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on April 16 in the case of a former police officer from Pennsylvania who entered the Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks. Joseph Fischer, who was charged with (among other things) assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct in the Capitol, and obstruction of a congressional proceeding, has asked the justices to throw out the charge that he obstructed an official proceeding, arguing that the law that he was charged with violating was only intended to apply to evidence tampering. More than 300 other Jan. 6 defendants have been charged with violating the law, which was enacted as part of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act in the wake of the Enron scandal. It is also at the center of two of the charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. – the same case in which the justices will hear argument on April 25 regarding Trump’s claims of immunity. A ruling in Fischer’s case is expected by late June or early July.
Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of April 8-12, 2024 –3rd Circuit
United States v. Hill, (No. 19-3508)(3rd Cir. April 12, 2024)– Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), it is unlawful for a person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment of a term exceeding one year to possess a firearm. Before 2019, in every circuit, a conviction under § 922(g)(1) required the government to prove that a person had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year and that the person knew that he or she possessed a firearm. Relevant to this appeal, the government did not have to prove that the person knew that he or she had been convicted of such a crime. In 2019, in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), the Supreme Court overturned this uniform precedent and held that to be convicted under § 922(g), the government must prove that the person knew that he or she is a member of the prohibited group. In 2013, Carlos Hill was convicted of possession of a firearm in violation of § 922(g)(1), and, in 2019, like many similarly situated people, he sought to collaterally attack his conviction in the wake of Rehaif. Hill filed a request with the District Court for appointment of counsel to pursue his Rehaif claim in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (a “§ 2255 motion”). The District Court denied his request for counsel and held that Hill did not qualify for relief under Rehaif because his 2019 § 2255 motion was second or successive. Hill appealed the District Court’s order, arguing that he does qualify for relief under Rehaif because his 2019 § 2255 motion was not second or successive, and Rehaif announced a new substantive rule that is retroactive for non-successive § 2255 motions. The Court agreed and vacated the District Court’s order and remanded for further proceedings.
7th Circuit
United States v. Yates, et. al., (Nos. 22-2994 & 23-1461)(7th Cir. April 11, 2024)– Yates and Connelly appeal their sentences following convictions for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. Both challenge the district court’s finding that the conspiracy involved at least 737.1 grams of “ice” methamphetamine, meaning methamphetamine that was at least 80% pure. Yates argued that the government failed to meet its burden of proving the purity of all that methamphetamine, having only tested a small, unrepresentative amount. The Court vacated Yates’s sentence and remanded. The Guidelines allow district courts to engage in some degree of estimation when determining drug quantity and purity, but the government must supply reliable evidence making that approximation reasonable. Because the Court found such evidence lacking here, Yates was entitled to resentencing.
9th Circuit
United States v. Milheiser, et. al, (No.21-50162)(9th Cir. April 9, 2024)--The panel vacated six defendants’ convictions for mail fraud and/or conspiracy to commit mail fraud arising from the defendants’ sales companies’ tactics in selling toner, and remanded. The panel explained that not just any lie that secures a sale constitutes fraud; the lie must instead go to the nature of the bargain. The panel held that the Government’s theory of fraud in this case was overbroad because it did not require the jury to find that the defendants deceived customers about the nature of the bargain. The Government did not argue that any error in this regard was harmless, and the panel concluded that the criteria for considering harmlessness sua sponte were not satisfied.
OTHER NEWSFirearm Cases Still Being Decided in District Courts While We Await Rahimi Decision:
United States v. Williams, (No. 23-cr-20201) (ED Mich., Feb 22, 2024)–- The District Court held that
the government had not satisfied its burden to justify that 18 USC § 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on all
felons possessing guns is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” an
Eastern District of Michigan US District Court judge threw out a § 922(g) indictment against Ron
Williams in late February.
United States v. Carbajal-Flores, ( No. 20-cr-00613)(N.D.Ill. Mar 8, 2024)– An Illinois District Court
dismissed a § 922(g)(5) case against Heriberto Carbajal-Flores for possessing a gun while illegally or
unlawfully being in the United States. Heriberto had had two prior motions denied, but the Court
reversed itself based on the 3rd Circuit’s Range v. AG and 7th Circuit’s Atkinson v. Garland decisions.
Fair Sentencing/Retroactive Sentence Reductions 4,141 Orders Granted to date.
Elderly Offender Home Confinement 1,247. Approved to date.
First Step Act Releases 31,673 granted to date.
Compassionate Releases/Reduction in Sentences 4,702 granted to date.
Population in RRC’s 8,222.
Population in Home Confinement 5,001.
A better week regarding favorable cases in the circuits this week. We are still receiving a great amount of people wanting to find out if they qualify for any of the new USSG Amendments such 814 and 821. Our FREE LOOK program on those kinds of Amendments ended Monday, April 1, 2024. We had hundreds of inquiries, but not many people actually qualified. Instead, we suggest that you opt for a Written Case Evaluation (“WCE”) as soon as possible to determine all remedies available to you to you to gain relief.
For the last 30 years, we have been very successful. We can help on direct appeals, 2255 motions, 2241 Petitions, First Step Act and Compassionate
Release Motions, Earned Time Credits, DC Superior Court Petitions, State Post Conviction, Clemencies and Pardons and other specialized motions to mention a few avenues for relief we cover.
The WCE is an excellent low cost tool to see what can be done for you at any stage of the proceedings. It is thorough and detailed from day one of your case to present with our
recommendations of any remedies available to gain relief.
If you are serious about fighting your case and want us to evaluate your case to see if you may have relief coming, request a Written Case
Evaluation.