U. S. Supreme Court Happenings and Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of August 19-23, 2024--

U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week ending August 23, 2024 –

The Court is currently in summer recess. The new term will begin in October, 2024. Summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on Friday, September 6, 2024. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.

Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of August 19-23, 2024 –

5th Circuit

United States v. Plezia, (No. 23-20483)(5th Cir. August 22, 2024)– Richard Plezia (“Plezia”) challenges his convictions of conspiracy to defraud the United States, making false statements, and falsification of records in a federal investigation following a fifteen-day jury trial. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for some of the convictions, the district court’s determination that the statute of limitations for one count of making false statements was equitably tolled, and the district court’s decision to allow two witnesses to testify with the aid of prior recorded recollections. Because the Court agreed with Plezia that equitable tolling of the statute of limitations in 18 U.S.C. § 3282 is not available, the Court vacated Plezia’s conviction under Count Five and remand with instructions to dismiss Count Five with prejudice.

6th Circuit

United States v. O’Hara, (Nos. 23-5695/5720)(6th Cir. August 20, 2024)– After pleading guilty to defrauding his own mother, John O’Hara was ordered to pay over $300,000 in restitution to his mother’s estate. One problem—O’Hara’s mother had passed away by the time of sentencing, leaving O’Hara the sole beneficiary of her estate. Four years later, the district court amended the judgment and directed O’Hara to pay the federal Crime Victims Fund instead of the estate. O’Hara appealed, claiming the district court had no authority to modify the judgment. The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2) does not authorize a district court to alter a restitution order, post judgment, to change the payee—at least in the circumstances of this case, and therefore, Reversed and Remanded.

7th Circuit

United States v. Johnson, (No. 23-2338) (7th Cir. August 20, 2024)– The Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) prescribes enhanced penalties in felon- in-possession cases when the defendant has “three previous convictions … for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Cameron Johnson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He previously had been convicted of three counts of robbery under Indiana law, which is a violent felony under ACCA.1 He nevertheless contended in the district court that he did not qualify for an enhanced sentence under ACCA. In his view, he had committed two of the robberies on the same occasion, rather than on “occasions different from one another.” Id. He also contended that a jury should decide whether he had committed the robberies on the same or different occasions. The district court rejected Johnson’s contention that the different-occasions question had to be decided by a jury. The court also concluded that the robberies had been committed on different occasions. It sentenced Johnson to fifteen years in prison, the minimum under ACCA. The Supreme Court recently has held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments entitle defendants to have a jury decide whether prior offenses were committed on the same or different occasions. Erlinger v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1840, 1852 (2024). Given the advent of Erlinger, the district court erred in declining to send the different-occasions question to a jury. This error was not a harmless one. Accordingly, the Court vacated the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

9th Circuit

Neiss v. Bludworth, (No. 22-35877)(9th Cir. August 16, 2024)– The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of Patrick Neiss’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition under the preliminary screening provision of Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, and remanded for further proceedings. Neiss was convicted in Montana state court of deliberate homicide and evidence tampering based solely on circumstantial evidence. He filed a pro se petition for federal habeas relief, asserting claims that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. The panel held that the district court misapplied the Rule 4 standard for summary dismissal of a habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rather than apply Rule 4’s standard for summary dismissal, the district court adjudicated Neiss’s petition on the merits. No authority provides for Rule 4 dismissal on the merits. The district court did not find, nor did the State argue, that Neiss’s petition qualified for summary dismissal because of a procedural defect. Nor did the district court find that Neiss’s claim was frivolous or failed to state a cognizable claim. Because Neiss’s petition alleged a cognizable, nonfrivolous claim, the district court erred by summarily dismissing his petition. The Court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

10th Circuit

United States v. Aragon, (No. 23-2135)(10th Cir. August 23, 2024)– In this case, the Court addressed the scope of United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Under that section, the district court added four offense levels to Arthur Aragon’s sentencing-guidelines calculation after concluding that he had “used or possessed any firearm . . . in connection with another felony offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). It did so despite concluding that Aragon did not commit New Mexico felony arson, the proposed “[]other felony offense.” Id. The district court ruled that Aragon’s throwing a Molotov cocktail onto his neighbor’s property had the potential to give rise to felony arson and so the enhancement was proper. But this ruling runs afoul of § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), so the Court reversed and remanded for resentencing without the enhancement

Latest Bureau of Prison’s Statistics (From BOP Website):

Fair Sentencing/Retroactive Sentence Reductions 4,146 Orders Granted to date.
Elderly Offender Home Confinement 1,246. Approved to date.
First Step Act Releases 36,890 granted to date.
Compassionate Releases/Reduction in Sentences 4,746 granted to date.
Population in RRC’s 8,447.
Population in Home Confinement 4,903.

COMMENT:

Our new FREE LOOK program ONLY for methamphetamine cases ended on July 3, 2024. We are finishing up our long list, but now we are only calling those who qualify. We suggest that as an alternative you opt for a detailed in-depth Written Case Evaluation (“WCE”) for all remedies available. Those are completed in writing within 3 to 5 days.

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.