U. S. Supreme Court Happenings, Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions and A notable new federal district court sentence reduction opinion for the Week of February 3-7, 2025--

U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week Ending February 7, 2025 –

The Justices currently do not have any more conferences scheduled this month. They will be holding oral argument at the end of the month on February 24-26, 2025.

Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of February 3-7, 2025 –

4th Circuit

United States v. Taylor, (No. 23-5834)(6th Cir. February 7, 2025)– A jury convicted Taylor of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, Taylor challenged the district court’s limitation of his cross-examination of one of the government’s witnesses under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Taylor also argued that the district court violated his due process and jury- trial rights by not requiring the jury to find that Taylor committed certain prior offenses on different occasions for purposes of determining whether the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) should have applied to him. Because the court’s cross-examination limitations violated Taylor’s constitutional right to confrontation and were not harmless, the Court reversed Taylor’s convictions and remand for a new trial.

United States v. Jackson, (No. 23-4580)(4th Cir. January 31, 2025)– Jackson pled guilty to possession of a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court calculated an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 110 to 120 months’ imprisonment and sentenced Jackson to a prison term of 115 months. In this appeal, Jackson argued the district court failed to explain its 115-month sentence or address Jackson’s arguments for a lower term of imprisonment. The absence of an individualized explanation for a sentence constituted procedural error, and the Court therefore vacated Jackson’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.

5th Circuit

United States v. Rose, (No. 22-10571)(5th Cir. February 4, 2025)– Rose appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in which he challenged his Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) sentences in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015). The government defended the district court’s denial because of United States v. Garrett, 24 F.4th 485, 486 (5th Cir. 2022), where the court held that robbery by threat and aggravated robbery by threat convictions under Texas criminal law qualify as ACCA predicate offenses. Shortly after oral argument, however, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals—the highest criminal court in Texas—issued its decision in Floyd v. Texas, -- S.W.3d --, 2024 WL 4757855 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 13, 2024), which unequivocally abrogated Garrett. PHI Grp., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 58 F.4th 838, 842 n.3 (5th Cir. 2023) (explaining that the rule of orderliness applies unless there is a “clearly contrary subsequent holding of the [state’s] highest court”). Because of this significant intervening change in law, the Court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. See, e.g., Utah v. Su, 109 F.4th 313, 319–20 (5th Cir. 2024) (explaining that the “modest and relatively uncontroversial practice” of remanding in light of changes in precedent reflects “two premises implicit in our legal system: first, that changes in precedent generally apply to cases pending on appeal; and second, that appellate courts generally sit as courts ‘of review, not first view’”).

6th Circuit

United States v. Grogan, (No. 22-3651)(6th Cir. February 3, 2025)– A jury convicted Juan Grogan of possessing a firearm as a felon, possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute. At trial, the judge allowed the government to admit testimony about a series of statements that Grogan made during a proffer session. The statements concerned his ownership of drugs, a firearm, and a wallet, and his involvement in a shooting and a kidnapping. On appeal, Grogan argued the admission of this evidence was an error. Under the proffer agreement, the government could introduce a particular statement from the proffer session if Grogan testified or presented arguments inconsistent with that statement. Grogan contended admission of the evidence was an error because neither of these conditions were met. The Court agreed with him that at least some of these statements should not have been admitted. And because the error was not harmless, the Court Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

7th Circuit

United States v. Easterling, (No. 23-1143)(7th Cir. February 3, 2025)– Easterling appealed his sentence for attempted robbery and possessing a firearm after sustaining a felony conviction. The United States Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of his sentencing assigned him two criminal history points for committing the offenses while on parole. But a retroactive amendment to the Guidelines no longer includes those so-called status points and, without them, Easterling would have a lower recommended sentencing range. The Court therefore remanded for resentencing.

8th Circuit

United States v. Cooper, (No. 24-1998)(8th Cir. February 5, 2025)– In United States v. Veasley, the Court concluded that keeping firearms out of the hands of drug users does not “always violate[] the Second Amendment.” 98 F.4th 906, 908 (8th Cir. 2024). Now the question in this appeal was whether it sometimes can. The Court answered yes, and remanded for the district court to determine whether it does for Cooper. Cooper consented to a bench trial on stipulated facts. One was that he smoked marijuana three to four times a week. Another was that he had done it two days before officers found a Glock 20 pistol in his car during a traffic stop. Based on those facts and a few others, the district court found Cooper guilty of being a drug user in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), and sentenced him to 37 months in prison. Cooper believes that Veasley requires a different answer. He continued to argue that prosecuting him under § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment. In every Second Amendment case, the overarching question is whether a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022). The Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for a reexamination of Cooper’s motion to dismiss the indictment.

OTHER NEWS

A notable new federal district court sentence reduction opinion in United States v. Cannon, (No. 4:95-cr-30 (CDL))(MD GA. Jan. 29, 2025) --The Court finds that under the limited circumstances here, the disparity of Cannon's sentence compared to that of his codefendants is of similar gravity to warrant a reduction of his sentence. Here, Cannon suffered a substantial penalty by exercising his constitutional right to require the Government to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a unanimous jury. As previously explained, Cannon, as the 23-year-old get-away driver, received a sentence of 1,313 months (109 years and 5 months) — essentially a life sentence for a young man four years removed from being a teenager. Although his conduct was serious and facilitated the criminal conduct of his codefendants, his personal conduct was primarily limited to driving the get- away vehicle. While a gun was found under the seat of his car, the evidence did not indicate that he ever discharged the gun. No one was physically harmed as a result of his conduct in driving the car. At the time of his sentencing, he had a criminal history category of III. Under later retroactive amendments to the sentencing guidelines, his criminal history category would be considered category II. His codefendants, who arguably engaged in more violent and dangerous conduct by entering the targeted establishments of the robberies and actually holding up the victims at gunpoint, made plea deals with the Government which resulted in sentences of 240 months for one defendant and 300 months for the other. The Court understands that sentence disparities between codefendants are often ordinary. But when that disparity is as large as it is here and when the criminal conduct of the defendant who received the substantially higher sentence was clearly less dangerous than that of his codefendants, such circumstances may rise to extraordinary.

COMMENT:

We hope to find some time soon to review these notable new sets of proposed amendments and perhaps comment on some of the particulars. We appreciate the Commission for continuing to be proactive in its work to improve its guidelines. It appears that they will help a lot of inmates. Of course, the question remains if any of these Amendments will be retroactive. Stay Tuned.

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.