U. S. Supreme Court Happenings and Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the for the Week of March 18-22, 2024--

U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week ending March 22, 2024 –

In March 2024, there are no conferences scheduled for the Justices, but there is oral argument on March 18-20 and March 25-27, 2024.

Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of March 18-22, 2024 –

2d Circuit

United States v. Oliveras, (No. 21-2954 )(2d March 15, 2024)– Oliveras appealed from a judgment following his guilty plea, sentencing him principally to sixtythree months’ imprisonment and a three-year supervised release term for possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Oliveras’s sole contention on appeal is that the imposition of a special condition of supervised release that subjects him to suspicionless searches by a probation officer (the “Search Condition”) violates the Fourth Amendment. The Court concluded that the “special needs” doctrine of the Fourth Amendment permits, when sufficiently supported by the record, the imposition of a special condition of supervised release that allows the probation officer to conduct a suspicionless search of the defendant’s person, property, vehicle, place of residence, or any other property under his or her control. However, the district court exceeded its discretion in imposing that special condition here because it failed to make the individualized assessment required to support the special condition under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), including a sufficient explanation as to how the condition is reasonably related in this particular case to the applicable statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary under those factors. Accordingly, the Court vacated the Search Condition and remanded to the district court for further consideration of whether it is necessary to impose the Search Condition in this particular case and, if so, for the district court to explain the individualized basis for imposing the Search Condition.

4th Circuit

United States v. Lassiter, (No. 22-4147)(4th Cir. March 20, 2024)– In light of United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022), Lassiter challenged his 924(c) convictions. However, the Court affirmed those convictions finding that attempted murder was a crime of violence, but because of an inconsistency between the oral and written descriptions of one of Lassiter’s supervised- release conditions, the Court vacated his sentence in its entirety and remanded for a full resentencing. See United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296, 300–01 (4th Cir. 2020).

United States v. Richardson, (No. 22-6748)(4th Cir. March 20, 2024)– This case involves the application of the “sentencing package doctrine” to the First Step Act. Under the sentencing package doctrine, when a court of appeals “vacates a sentence and remands for resentencing, the sentence becomes void in its entirety and the district court is free to revisit any rulings it made at the initial sentencing.” United States v. Ventura, 864 F.3d 301, 309 (4th Cir. 2017). In this case, the district court’s post-remand order found that Count 3, distribution of crack cocaine, was a covered offense and reduced Richardson’s Count 3 sentence from life imprisonment to 360 months. On Count 2, the court relied on our decision in f United States v. Thomas, 32 F.4th 420, 430 (4th Cir. 2022) (per curiam) (holding CCE is not a covered offense), and left the life term intact. Richardson argued the district court erred in not recognizing it had the authority to reduce Richardson’s CCE offense pursuant to the sentencing package doctrine. Because the judge misapprehended the bounds of his discretion, the Court remanded this case to the district court with instruction that its discretion under Section 404 of the First Step Act includes the authority to use the sentencing package doctrine.

5th Circuit

United States v. Santiago, (No. 23-30149)(5th Cir. March 21, 2024)– Santiago and his coconspirators were selling marihuana out of a hotel room. Late one night, a few of their recent buyers decided to come back with guns and rob them. But the sellers were armed too. So, when the buyers returned to the hotel room, they began a shootout, and three of the thirteen involved were shot— none fatally. The police arrived,stopped Santiago, and arrested him. He confessed to his involvement and eventually pleaded guilty to four separate charges. After obtaining new counsel and reviewing the presentence investigation report (“PSR”), Santiago moved to withdraw his plea, contending that the PSR recommended improperly punishing him for attempted first degree murder. The district court sentenced Santiago to 360 months. The parties dispute whether the court’s oral explanation included a crossreference to attempted second-degree murder under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.1(a)(2), but they agreed that the court upwardly varied the sentence because of the shooter’s danger to hotel guests. On appeal, Santiago raised a bevy of challenges to his plea and sentence. The Court concluded that the district court erred in calculating the guideline range because it applied the attempted-murder cross-reference without considering that Santiago acted in self-defense. Therefore, the court committed clear error, and the Court vacated and remanded for resentencing.

6th Circuit

United States v. Alvarado, (No. 22-5459)(6th Cir. March 18, 2024)– Alvarado was convicted of possessing a firearm as an individual with a felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to 104 months’ imprisonment after applying a four-level sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment. Alvarado appealed. He argued, among other things, that the evidence did not support a sentencing enhancement for reckless endangerment. The district court here explained at sentencing that even if it had “sustained Mr. Alvarado’s objections to the” sentencing enhancement, it “would have imposed the same term of imprisonment and the same term of supervised release” because of his “lack of respect for the law and the sheer dangerousness of his offense,” observing that Alvarado was “lucky that no one was physically harmed or worse.” The court’s emphasis on the “dangerousness” of Alvarado’s offense and on his good fortune that no one was injured link the purportedly alternative basis for the sentence to the court’s predicate determination that Alvarado put others in imminent danger. However, the evidence does not support that premise and the Court could not be “certain” that the district court’s error in applying the sentencing enhancement was harmless. The Court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing.

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

Fair Sentencing/Retroactive Sentence Reductions 4,138 Orders Granted to date.
Elderly Offender Home Confinement 1,247. Approved to date.
First Step Act Releases 30,803 granted to date.
Compassionate Releases/Reduction in Sentences 4,691 granted to date.
Population in RRC’s 8,177.
Population in Home Confinement 5,054.

COMMENT:

We are still receiving a great amount of people wanting to find out if they qualify for any of the new USSG Amendments such 814 and 821. We suggest that you opt for a Written Case Evaluation (“WCE”) as soon as possible to make that determination. Amendment 821 became effective on February 1, 2024, and we are already seeing a flood of these so-called motions being filed. We have seen the Form Fill-in Motions, which do not do the job the way it should be done. As such, all of those motions we have seen have been denied. There is a lot more to it than filling out a form. The motion must be personalized. A WCE will also tell you if you have any other relief 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.