U. S. Supreme Court Happenings, Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions and More on United States v. Rahimi for the Week of June 24-28, 2024--
U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week ending June 28, 2024 –
The Justices held their June 20, 2024, which is the last scheduled conference this term and the last week for the Supreme Court before the
Justice’s summer recess. Below are a couple of opinions that the Court has issued. They will also be issuing opinions on Monday, which is highly unusual for the Court to take its term into
July. Today’s big news in the Court is the Fischer case. That case will have a huge influence on the cases brought and tried on the January 6th cases. Here are the opinions decided on
June 26, 2024:
Snyder v. United States, (No. 23-108) (S. Ct. June 26, 2024)– The Court ruled that federal bribery law does not make it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities that may be
given as a token of appreciation after the official act. Federal law, the court writes, “leaves it to state and local governments to regulate gratuities to state and local officials.”
Murthy v. Missouri, (No. 22-411) (S. Ct. June 26, 2024)– A dispute over the government’s communications with social media companies during the 2020 election season and COVID-19 pandemic, the court holds that the challengers — two states and five social media users — do not have a legal right to sue.
Here is the most relevant opinions issued today:
Fischer v. United States, (No. 23–5572) (S. Ct. June 28, 2024)– In the case of a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the Court held that to prove a
violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things
used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so. The case is returned to the lower court to determine whether the indictment can still stand in light of this new and narrower
interpretation.
City of Grants Pass v. United States, (No. 23-175) (S. Ct. June 28, 2024)–The Court ruled that “camping ban” laws restricting the homeless from sleeping on public property do not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” and are therefore not prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. The court overrules its 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which held that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, (No. 22–451)((S. Ct. June 28, 2024)– The Court rules 6-3 that courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.
Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of June 24-28, 2024 –3d Circuit
United States v. Davis, (No. 23-1327)(3d Cir. June 27, 2024)– Luis Davis appealed the District Court’s judgment sentencing him to 102 months’ imprisonment. He claimed the government breached its promise in a plea agreement to recommend a sentence at the “low end” of his Sentencing Guidelines range (87 to 108 months). The Court agreed that the government breached the agreement when it emphasized the heinous nature of Davis’s crimes and the harm suffered by the victims. In doing so, the government effectively advocated for a sentence higher than the one it promised to recommend. The Court vacated and remanded for resentencing.
7th Circuit
United States v. Montgomery, (No. 23-1976)(7th Cir. June 24, 2024)– Travis Montgomery pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine. At his sentencing hearing, the government proved that Montgomery had stowed the methamphetamine (as well as other drugs), cash, and drug trafficking paraphernalia in an off-site storage unit leased by his sister. Finding that Montgomery had used the storage unit primarily to facilitate his drug operation, the district court added a two-level enhancement pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(12) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). But because the present record falls short of establishing that a primary use of the storage unit was drug distribution, the Court vacated and remanded for further factfinding.
9th Circuit
United States v. Hernandez, (No.22-50134) (9th Cir. June 28, 2024)– The panel vacated the district court’s order denying Vladimir Horowitz’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and remanded, in a case in which the panel addressed whether a criminal defendant’s belated realization that his safety-valve proffer could lead to reprisal in prison counts as a “fair and just” reason to withdraw his guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2). The panel held that a defendant must first offer in good faith a “new” basis for seeking to withdraw his plea, meaning that he subjectively did not know this “new” reason for withdrawal at the time of his plea. He then must show that objectively he could not have known or anticipated this “new” material reason. Even if a defendant offers a goodfaith “new” basis for withdrawing his plea, that reason is not a “fair and just” one under Rule 11 if a reasonable person could have known about it or anticipated it at the time of the plea. The panel held that a defendant must first offer in good faith a “new” basis for seeking to withdraw his plea, meaning that he subjectively did not know this “new” reason for withdrawal at the time of his plea. He then must show that objectively he could not have known or anticipated this “new” material reason. Even if a defendant offers a goodfaith “new” basis for withdrawing his plea, that reason is not a “fair and just” one under Rule 11 if a reasonable person could have known about it or anticipated it at the time of the plea.
OTHER NEWSThe Supreme Court's Second Amendment ruling in United States v. Rahimi decided last week, did not make it any easier to figure out if the most prosecuted federal criminal gun prohibition, 18 USC § 922(g)(1), is or is not constitutionally sound in many (most?) cases. This provision, often described as "felon in possession," formally prohibits all sorts of firearm activity and possession for anyone and everyone who has "been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."
The U. S. Solicitor General made a filing in the Supreme Court covering five pending cases challenging the constitutionality of the broad "felon in
possession" prohibition. Here is how this filing starts:
These five cases present the question whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the statute prohibiting a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year,” ibid., violates the Second Amendment. In each case, we asked this Court to hold the petition for a writ of certiorari pending its decision in United States v.
Rahimi, No. 22-915 (June 21, 2024). Now that the Court has decided Rahimi, we believe that it should grant plenary review to resolve Section 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality. In particular,
the Court should grant the petitions in Doss, Jackson, and either Range or Vincent; consolidate the granted cases for briefing and argument; and hold the remaining petitions pending the
resolution of the granted cases. If the Court chooses not to take that course, it should grant, vacate, and remand (GVR) in Range and deny certiorari in the remaining cases.
Fair Sentencing/Retroactive Sentence Reductions 4,143 Orders Granted to date.
Elderly Offender Home Confinement 1,246. Approved to date.
First Step Act Releases 34,605 granted to date.
Compassionate Releases/Reduction in Sentences 4,726 granted to date.
Population in RRC’s 8,432.
Population in Home Confinement 4,948.
We are still receiving a great amount of people wanting to find out if there was a disparity in there case regarding methamphetamine “actual” and “mixture.” Our new FREE LOOK program for ONLY methamphetamine cases ends on July 3, 2024. If you do not give us the information required (like outside contact’s name and telephone number or where you went to court), we will not do the lookup and move on. We have had hundreds of inquiries, and many people are qualified. You must be patient because we are about a week behind. This is only for methamphetamine cases and is not the same as a detailed in-depth Written Case Evaluation (“WCE”) for all remedies available.
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.