U. S. Supreme Court Happenings, Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions and the US Sentencing Commission had a public hearing-- for the Week of March 10-14, 2025--

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

On Monday, the U. S. Supreme Court released its new order list from the conference held on March 7, 2025, but there was not anything that related to criminal matters. The Justices will hold their next conference on March 21, 2025.

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

4th Circuit

United States v. Wheeler, (No. 23-4636)(4th Cir. March 10, 2025)– Wheeler appealed the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to six months of imprisonment followed by an additional year of supervised release. Before presenting evidence at the revocation hearing, the government informed the court that Mobley, the alleged victim, was not present for the hearing. The government explained that it made efforts to subpoena Mobley, but she did not make herself “available for service of that subpoena despite great efforts by the probation officer in this case.” Wheeler argued that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted hearsay evidence during his revocation hearing, and that the improper hearsay evidence was essential to the district court’s finding that he violated his supervised release. Further, he contended that the district court abused its discretion by misapplying the Doswell balancing test. Doswell requires that before a court “admit[s] hearsay evidence in a revocation hearing,” it “must balance the releasee’s interest in confronting an adverse witness against any proffered good cause for denying such confrontation.” 670 F.3d at 530. The government bears the burden of establishing good cause for denying the confrontation. The Court agreed and vacated the district court’s judgment on the revocation of supervised release and remanded with instructions for the district court to dismiss the Revocation Petition.

United States v. Nixon, (No. 23-4207)(4th Cir. March 10, 2025)– Nixon pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924. While incarcerated and awaiting sentencing, he committed several acts of violence, including multiple stabbings. The district court sentenced Nixon to more than double the Sentencing Guidelines range for his felon in possession charge, relying almost entirely on Nixon’s violent acts while awaiting sentencing to justify the upward departure. The court below also disregarded a report from an unrebutted, qualified medical expert that found that Nixon’s violent conduct was the result of his mental health condition and that, if treated, Nixon would pose little continued threat to society. Nixon asserted that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable for several reasons, all of which independently require vacatur for resentencing. First, he argued that the district court erred by considering dissimilar conduct in violation of U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. Next, Nixon argued that the district court skipped steps in departing to a higher criminal history category, going straight from category III to category VI without considering intervening categories. Last, Nixon contends that the district court’s finding that Nixon’s conduct was not the product of his untreated mental health condition was clearly erroneous, as the district court completely disregarded unrebutted expert testimony to the contrary without justification. The Fourth Circuit held Nixon was correct on all fronts and vacated his sentence and remanded with instructions that the district court recalculate Nixon’s criminal history category without improper consideration of dissimilar conduct, with consideration of intermediate criminal history categories, and without unwarranted and unexplained rejection of Dr. Utterback’s crucial testimony.

10th Circuit

United States v. Gulley, (No. 24-3078)(10th Cir. March 10, 2025)– This appeal stems from a delayed revocation hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i), which extends the district court’s power to revoke an expired term of supervised release if “a warrant or summons has been issued” before the expiration, and the delay from expiration to revocation is “reasonably necessary.” Mr. Gulley served a three-year term of supervised release—the statutory maximum for his offense. A petition to revoke Mr. Gulley’s supervised release was filed—and a summons issued—a few days before the term expired, but the district court delayed the revocation hearing for six months at Mr. Gulley’s request. The district court ordered Mr. Gulley to remain on his already-expired term of supervision until the continued revocation hearing. Ultimately, the district court revoked supervision and imposed a custodial sentence of 15 months. Mr. Gulley appealed that judgment, contending the six-month delay was not “reasonably necessary” under § 3583(i), and that the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the revocation petition. The Court agreed with Mr. Gulley and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to release Mr. Gulley from custody.

11th Circuit

United States v. Davis, (No. 22-12971)(11th Cir. March 13, 2025)– On May 26, 2022, a jury, sitting in the Southern District of Florida, convicted Roshawn Jermaine Davis of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances (heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine base), and nine counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. Davis appealed his conspiracy conviction on various grounds. Davis argued, among other things, that a Faretta hearing should have been held concerning his right to self-representation at sentencing. After careful review, the Court vacated his sentence and remanded for the district court to conduct an appropriate Faretta inquiry.

OTHER NEWS

The US Sentencing Commission had a public hearing scheduled on Wednesday and Thursday to receive testimony from invited expert witnesses on proposed amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines relating to supervised release and drug offenses." The USSC's webpage included links to all of the witnesses' written testimony. We will give further reports on their testimony once we have time to review all of it.

COMMENT:

Based on the recent executive order of President Trump, 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 Range and Daniels, and the recent decisions in Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Circuit, 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 extending this offer through February of 2025. In addition, 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. In order to conduct the lookup, we will need an outside contact’s name and telephone number, where you went to court, and your case number. We will get in touch with 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.