U. S. Supreme Court Happenings, Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions and President Trump May Care about § 922(g)(1)–for the Week of February 10-14, 2025--

U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week Ending February 14, 2025 –

There is no conference being held this week by the Justices.

Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of February 10-14, 2025 –

1st Circuit

United States v. Feliciano-Candelario, (No. 22-1879) (1st Cir. January 10, 2025)– Feliciano-Candelario (“Feliciano”) was indicted on five federal counts stemming from three separate armed robberies. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Feliciano pled guilty and was convicted on four of those counts; the fifth count was dismissed. Under that plea agreement, Feliciano and the government jointly recommended a sentence of 130 months, which was below the calculated United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines") range of 157 to 181 months. The district court sentenced Feliciano to 181 months. On appeal, Feliciano challenged that sentence on several grounds, arguing that the district court incorrectly applied a sentencing enhancement for otherwise using, not brandishing, a knife during a carjacking. The Court agreed with Feliciano that the district court improperly concluded that Feliciano otherwise used the knife, not brandished it, and so the Court vacated his sentence on the carjacking count and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding that enhancement.

2nd Circuit

United States v. Mangano, (Docs. 22-861(L) and 22-937(Con))(2nd Cir. February 13, 2025)– Edward Mangano (“Mangano”) and his wife, Linda Mangano (“L. Mangano”) challenged their convictions for conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery and honest services fraud and the related substantive offenses. The indictment specifically alleges that Mangano aided and abetted a bribery scheme “for the benefit of EDWARD MANGANO,” A-155, not Town officials, so evidence of the latter is insufficient to support conviction of the former. And the government produced no evidence that Singh’s bribes to Venditto, Genova, and Mei were for Mangano’s benefit — nor could it, since those bribes were plainly for the benefit of the Town officials who pocketed them. The Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to convict Mangano of conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery or the related substantive offense. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

3rd Circuit

United States v. Pitsilides, (No. 21-3320)(3rd Cir. February 10, 2025)– In our recent decision in Range v. Attorney General, 124 F.4th 218 (3d Cir. 2024) (en banc) (Range II), the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal felon-in-possession statute, was unconstitutional as applied to a plaintiff who, after the completion of his sentence, brought a declaratory judgment action seeking prospective protection to possess a firearm. Here, Pitsilides seeks identical relief—a declaratory judgment entitling him to prospectively possess a firearm. But as the Court explained in Range II, a felon’s entitlement to that relief turns on his individual circumstances and conduct. See 124 F.4th at 232. Because the parties litigated this case in the District Court under a Second Amendment framework that has since been abrogated—and which turned on different considerations—the Court concluded that further factual development was needed to properly consider Pitsilides’ challenge.
Accordingly, the Court vacated and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.

11th Circuit

United States v. Williamson, et. al., (No. 22-12800)(11th Cir. February 13, 2025)– Rolando Williamson, Hendarius Archie, Ishmywel Gregory, and Adrien Taylor appeal their convictions concerning several drug distribution and conspiracy charges. The Court concluded because conspiracy is a lesser included offense to Williamson’s additional conviction of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, Williamson’s conspiracy conviction must be vacated and remanded for resentencing. Further, in light of the jury’s drug quantity finding, Gregory’s sentence of 40 years is above the statutory maximum. Therefore, the Court vacated Gregory’s sentence in its entirety and remanded for resentencing, consistent with this opinion.

OTHER NEWS

PRESIDENT (AND FELON) TRUMP MAY CARE ABOUT § 922(g)(1)– Lisa Law by Tom Root (February 10, 2015)– Last Friday, President Trump issued an executive order that strongly suggests the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) may soon rethink its stance on Second Amendment issues. The order directs the new Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to “examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the 2nd Amendment rights of our citizens and present a proposed plan of action to the President… to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans.” It specifically instructs her to review “[t]he positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.”

Although this does not necessarily mean the DOJ will abandon its opposition to every “prohibited person in possession” issue raised by § 922(g)— including the question of whether it is constitutional to apply these restrictions to nonviolent defendants with convictions dating back a quarter century, as in the case of Bryan Range—it is a clear sign that any upcoming Supreme Court case involving § 922(g) could see a more sympathetic approach from the DOJ than we have witnessed so far.

COMMENT:

Based on the above executive order, Alert2020 believes that anyone who was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and has a non- drug and non -violent predicate prior conviction should opt to have us look at their case to see if they may be able to challenge their § 922(g) conviction.

In light of the recent En Banc Third Circuit decisions in Daniels and Range, we suggest that anyone with a non-violent non-drug conviction where they were charged under § 922(g) should opt for the quick lookup we are offering during January of 2025. Contrary to inmate rumor at inmate.com, there are no changes to § 924(c) convictions. However, the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have determined that district courts may consider § 403(a)’s non-retroactive changes in combination with other factors presented by an incarcerated person. These Circuits effectively allow district courts to consider an incarcerated person’s stacked charges as an extraordinary and compelling reason, so long as they present another factor that may warrant compassionate release. We will need an outside contact’s name and telephone number, where you went to court, and your case number. We will contact your contact and let them know if you have any potential relief available from the above remedies. Our case evaluation telephone number for the above is (832) 346-0220.

For the last 30 years, we have been very successful 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 you 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.