ALERT UPDATE 2020 – WEEKLY REPORT U.S. Supreme Court and Circuit Court Wins
Edition: Week of May 19-23, 2025
SUPREME COURT WATCH
The Justices held their May 22, 2025 conference this week. We expect Orders on May 27, 2025.
CIRCUIT COURT VICTORIES: 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 10th Circuits Deliver Big Wins--United States v. Martinez, (No. 23-1449)(3rd Cir. May 20, 2025)–A jury in the District of Delaware convicted Shakira Martinez of multiple money laundering offenses tied to a drug trafficking operation led by her husband and co-defendant, Omar Morales Colon. She was sentenced to 108 months in prison. Following her sentencing, the U.S. Sentencing Commission adopted a retroactive amendment to the Guidelines, permitting certain first-time offenders a two-level reduction in their offense level. Martinez contends that under 28 U.S.C. § 2106, this Court has the authority to vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing in light of the amendment. The Court agreed because when a defendant is eligible to seek a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the Court may, under our discretionary authority in § 2106, vacate the sentence and remand for reconsideration under the new Guidelines. Because doing so in this case promotes judicial economy and fairness, the Court vacated Martinez’s sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with the retroactive amendment.
United States v. Lucidonio, No. 24-1285 (3d Cir. May 16, 2025)– Nicholas Lucidonio, co-owner of the cheesesteak restaurant Tony Luke’s, pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the IRS in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Klein conspiracy). Over a decade, Lucidonio orchestrated a payroll tax fraud scheme in which employees were paid partly “off the books” in cash, while official paychecks reflected only reduced “on-the-books” wages. Tony Luke’s then filed false tax returns underreporting wages and employment taxes. Employees, informed of the scheme during onboarding, received W-2s listing only the reported wages and underreported their own income taxes. The scheme affected 30–40 employees at any time and involved destruction of original records. Lucidonio did not challenge his conviction but appealed a two-point sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.9(b)(2), which applies when conduct is intended to encourage others beyond co-conspirators to violate tax laws or obstruct IRS functions. He argued the enhancement required explicit direction to violate the law and that only co-conspirators were involved. The Third Circuit rejected Lucidonio’s narrow interpretation of “encourage,” but agreed that the government failed to prove he influenced individuals beyond his co-conspirators. Because the burden rests with the government to justify the enhancement, the Court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
United States v. Brown, (No. 22-7105)(4th Cir. May 20, 2025)– This appeal concerns Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), which governs
whether an attorney’s performance was deficient or fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and whether such deficient performance prejudiced the defendant as a result. Appellant
Edwin Leo Brown rejected a plea deal after his attorney provided erroneous advice as to his sentencing exposure. The district court found—and the government concedes—Brown’s attorney
performed deficiently. However, the district court ultimately found Brown failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by his attorney. As such, the only question before us is whether Brown was
prejudiced by his attorney’s shortcomings, i.e., if there was a “reasonable probability” Brown would have accepted the plea deal if properly advised. Finding Brown has sufficiently
established he was prejudiced by his attorney’s shortcomings, the Court reversed the district court’s denial of relief, remanded the case, and required the government to re-offer Brown the
same plea agreements.
United States v. West, (No. 22-11001)(5th Cir. May 21, 2025)– Kyle Lamar West appealed the part of his sentence that ordered him to pay $6,000 in restitution. Because the PSR cites
inapplicable statutes and the district court failed to conduct a proximate-cause analysis as required by precedent, the Court vacated the restitution order and remanded the case for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
United States v. Kimbrough, (No. 23-5529)(6th Cir. May 21, 2025)– Jermaine Kimbrough pleaded guilty in 2022 to four criminal offenses that involved carjacking and firearms. At sentencing, the district court determined that Kimbrough had committed three prior violent felonies “on occasions different from one another,” which made him subject to an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Supreme Court subsequently held in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 835 (2024), that error occurs when a judge, instead of a jury, makes the “occasions” decision. The Court reviewed that decision to determine if the error was harmless. See United States v. Campbell, 122 F.4th 624, 629–31 (6th Cir. 2024). Because the error was not harmless in the present case, the Court vacated Kimbrough’s sentence on Counts One, Two, and Four and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
United States v. Pitts, (No. 24-1154)(8th Cir. May 19, 2025)--Thomas Pitts was convicted of methamphetamine conspiracy and distribution after choosing to represent himself at trial. Dissatisfied with appointed counsel, he was allowed to proceed pro se just days before trial. However, the district court failed to give the constitutionally required warnings about the risks of self-representation under the Sixth Amendment. The Eighth Circuit found that the court did not ensure Pitts’s waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. Simply calling his decision “a bad one” was insufficient. The record lacked evidence that Pitts understood the consequences—especially as he relied on irrelevant legal concepts, such as canon law. Citing Faretta v. California and Strickland v. Washington, the Court held that such a waiver cannot be presumed valid or harmless. Because Pitts’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated, his conviction was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.
United States v. Davis, (No. 23-1367)(10th Cir. May 21, 2025)–Omari Davis appealed his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits firearm possession by anyone previously convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison. In 2019, Davis pleaded guilty under Colorado law to possession with intent to distribute an imitation controlled substance—baking soda. The district court found this conviction satisfied § 922(g)(1)’s prior-conviction element. The Court disagreed. Because nothing in the record of conviction allowed for a sentence above Colorado’s one-year presumptive maximum, the offense was not punishable by more than one year. Accordingly, § 922(g)(1) does not apply. The Court reversed Davis’s conviction.
United States v. Wilson, (No. 23-6150)(10th Cir. May 19, 2025)–After a jury convicted Ke’Andre Wilson of methamphetamine conspiracy, he was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 10 years. Wilson had attempted to plead guilty to a lesser charge that carried no mandatory minimum, but the district court rejected the plea, citing an insufficient factual basis. The Government then withdrew the lesser charge and proceeded to trial on the original indictment. At trial, over defense objection, the prosecution introduced Wilson’s prior plea statements—including admissions of guilt—from his withdrawn plea agreement. The court permitted the Government to reference these statements throughout trial, despite never finding that Wilson breached the plea agreement. On appeal, Wilson argued that the district court erred by allowing the Government to use his plea admissions without first holding a hearing and making a factual finding of breach. We agree. The use of plea statements without a judicial determination of breach violated due process, and the Government has not shown this error was harmless. Accordingly, the Court reversed Wilson’s conviction, vacate the judgment, and remand for a new trial.
IS YOUR CONVICTION OR SENTENCE CHALLENGEABLE?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