ALERT UPDATE 2020 – WEEKLY REPORT U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Court Wins
Edition: Week of May 12-16, 2025
SUPREME COURT WATCH
The Justices held their May 15, 2025 conference this week. We expect Orders on May 27, 2025.
The Supreme Court yesterday handed down a short opinion in Barnes v. Felix, (No. 23–1239) (S. Ct. May 15, 2025). The unanimous ruling, authored by Justice Kagan for the Court, breaks no new ground, but reiterates prior doctrines in reversing the Fifth Circuit. Here is how the nine-page opinion for the Court starts:
A police officer’s use of deadly force violates the Fourth Amendment when it is not “objectively reasonable.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397
(1989). And that inquiry into reasonableness, we have held, requires assessing the “totality of the circumstances.” Id., at 396 (quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 9 (1985)).
The question here is whether that framework permits courts, in evaluating a police shooting (or other use of force), to apply the so-called moment-of-threat rule used in the courts below.
Under that rule, a court looks only to the circumstances existing at the precise time an officer perceived the threat inducing him to shoot. Today, we reject that approach as improperly
narrowing the requisite Fourth Amendment analysis. To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and
events leading up to the climactic moment.
In our opinion, Graham does not break new ground, but some of the broader vibes seem worth noting. The opinion includes much discussion of modern Fourth Amendment caselaw, as well as modern policing realities, but seemingly do not engage at all the text, history and tradition of the actual Fourth Amendment.
CIRCUIT COURT VICTORIES: 1st Circuit Delivers Big Wins--United States v. Cruz-Rivera, (No. 22-1541) (1st Cir. May 12, 2025)– This appeal concerns Carlos Cruz-Rivera's ("Cruz") motion to reduce his sentence. He brought the motion in 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by Section 603(b) of the First Step Act ("FSA"), Pub. L. No. 115–391, § 603(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (2018). After the District Court denied the motion, Cruz appealed. This Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of our intervening decision in United States v. Ruvalcaba, 26 F.4th 14 (1st Cir. 2022). On remand, the District Court ordered briefing on Ruvalcaba before ultimately denying the motion in a brief text order that did not specify the ground for the ruling. Cruz appealed from that judgment. The Court again vacated and remanded conclude that "appellate review is unworkable" and "a remand is necessary," to ensure that, insofar as the District Court in resolving Cruz's motion addresses the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" requirement, it applies a proper understanding of that requirement under Ruvalcaba rather than the unduly narrow understanding that the government may be understood to have advanced below.
United States v. Flores-Alvarez, (No. 23-1163)(1st Cir. May 12, 2025)– A routine luggage inspection at Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport,
Puerto Rico unearthed just over 8 kilograms of cocaine in a checked bag heading for Philadelphia. The individual who toted the bag, Jorge Flores-Álvarez ("Flores"), was interdicted by
Homeland Security Investigations Task Force Officers at the airport, arrested, and later pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. During the sentencing
process, Flores sought and argued for a mitigating role adjustment under the U. S. Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied Flores's request and imposed a sentence without it.
On appeal, Flores challenged the procedural reasonableness of the district court's sentencing determination -- namely, its denial of a mitigating role adjustment, which Flores says
constituted a misinterpretation of the applicable law. Because the district court erred as a matter of law when it assessed Flores's eligibility for a mitigating role adjustment, the Court
vacated the sentence and remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Amendments Submitted to Congress by the U.S. Sentencing Commission of April 30, 2025–
On April 30, 2025, the United States Sentencing Commission submitted a series of amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines to Congress, with an effective date of November 1, 2025. These amendments address various aspects of the guidelines, aiming to resolve circuit conflicts, adjust sentencing for drug and firearms offenses, and simplify sentencing procedures.
Key Amendments:
1. Resolution of Circuit Conflicts:
■ Physically Restrained Enhancement: Clarifies that the two-level enhancement under §2B3.1(b)(4)(B) applies only when a victim's movement is restricted through physical contact or
confinement (e.g., being tied or locked up), not merely by threats or display of a weapon;
■ Intervening Arrest Definition: Specifies that a traffic stop does not qualify as an "intervening arrest" under §4A1.2(a)(2) for determining whether prior sentences should be counted
separately or as a single sentence in criminal history calculations.
2. Drug Offenses Adjustments:
■ Mitigating Role Cap: Revises §2D1.1(a)(5) to cap offense levels for defendants receiving a mitigating role adjustment under §3B1.2. For instance, if a defendant's base offense level is
above 34 and they receive a four-level reduction for a minimal role, the offense level is capped at;
■ Special Instruction for Low-Level Offenders:* Adds §2D1.1(e)(2), providing that an adjustment under §3B1.2 is generally warranted for defendants whose primary function was a low-level
trafficking role, such as couriers or lookouts, even if they are not substantially less culpable than other participants. ([U.S. Sentencing Commission][2])
3. Firearms Offenses Clarification:
■ Use of Firearm Enhancement: Amends §2B3.1(b)(2)(B) to clarify that a six-level enhancement applies when a firearm is used to convey a specific threat of harm (e.g., pointing at a
specific victim) or to make physical contact (e.g., pistol-whipping).
4. Supervised Release Guidelines:
■ Introduces policy statements to provide guidance on revocation of supervised release, aiming to ensure consistency and fairness in revocation decisions.
5. Simplification of Sentencing Procedures:
■ Streamlines the three-step sentencing process to enhance clarity and efficiency in guideline application.
■ Retroactivity Consideration:
The Commission is seeking public comment on whether certain amendments, particularly those related to mitigating role adjustments and resolution of circuit conflicts, should be applied
retroactively to previously sentenced individuals. This consideration is in line with 28 U.S.C. § 994(u) and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which govern the retroactive application of guideline
amendments.
These amendments reflect the Commission’s ongoing efforts to refine sentencing guidelines, promote uniformity, and ensure that sentencing practices are fair and just.
Recent Executive Orders and circuit rulings have reopened the door for:
- § 922(g) firearm convictions (non-violent, non-drug priors); and
- Compassionate release motions based on non-retroactive § 403(a) stacking reforms.
Recent wins in the 3rd, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits show courts are rethinking prior convictions and excessive sentencing on § 922(g) convictions.
Please Provide:
- Contact’s name + telephone number
- Court of conviction
- Case number
We’ll notify your contact if relief may be available. Call: (832) 346-0220.
30 Years. Thousands Helped. Real Results.
We offer professional, affordable evaluations for:
- Direct appeals
- § 2255 / § 2241 motions
- First Step Act + Compassionate Release
- Earned time credit disputes
- Clemency + pardon requests
- Specialized State and Federal post-conviction motions
- Case number