U. S. Supreme Court Happenings and Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of May 27-31, 2024--
U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week ending May 31, 2024 –
The Justices held their May 30, 2024 conference. We expect Orders on June 3, 2024.
In its one criminal decision among three new opinions handed down by the Supreme Court this Thursday, the Justices by a 6-3 vote reversed a Ninth Circuit ruling in the capital case.
Thornell v. Jones, No. 22-982 (S. Ct. May 30, 2024). Justice Alito authored the opinion for the
Court, which starts and ends this way:
In this case, we review a decision of the Ninth Circuit ordering the resentencing of a defendant who, in order to steal a gun collection,
committed three gruesome killings, including the cold-blooded murder of a 7-year-old girl. The Ninth Circuit held that the defendant’s Sixth
Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated during the sentencing phase of his capital trial. In reaching this
conclusion, the Ninth Circuit substantially departed from the well-established standard articulated by this Court in Strickland v. Washington,
466 U. S. 668 (1984). Among other things, the Ninth Circuit all but ignored the strong aggravating circumstances in this case. As a result, we
must reverse the judgment below....
When a capital defendant claims that he was prejudiced at sentencing because counsel failed to present available mitigating evidence, a court
must decide whether it is reasonably likely that the additional evidence would have avoided a death sentence. This analysis requires an
evaluation of the strength of all the evidence and a comparison of the weight of aggravating and mitigating factors. The Ninth Circuit did not
heed that instruction; rather, it downplayed the serious aggravating factors present here and overstated the strength of mitigating evidence
that differed very little from the evidence presented at sentencing. Had the Ninth Circuit engaged in the analysis required by Strickland, it
would have had no choice but to affirm the decision of the District Court denying habeas relief. We therefore reverse the judgment of the
Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
4th Circuit
United States v. Mathis, (No. 21-4578)(4th Cir. May 29, 2024)– This appeal installs another episode in our circuit’s Rogers-Singletary series. At Mathis’ sentencing hearing, the district court orally pronounced that he would “be subject to warrantless search and seizure to ensure compliance with these conditions.” Later, the district court issued the written judgment with a special condition providing that Mathis “shall submit his or her person, property, house, residence, vehicle, papers, [computers as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1), other electronic communications or data storage devices or media], or office, to a search conducted by a United States probation officer.”It also required Mathis to “warn any other occupants that the premises may be subject to searches pursuant to this condition. ” On appeal, Mathis argued that the additional language in the written judgment constitutes error under United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020), and United States v. Singletary (Singletary I), 984 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2021). The Court agreed with Mathis that the requirement that he “warn any other occupants that the premises may be subject to searches pursuant to this condition,” is inconsistent with the orally pronounced condition. And, although both parties ask us to strike some or all of the condition containing the offending language, our precedent permits only one remedy. Rogers, Singletary I and their progeny required the Court to vacate Mathis’ sentence and remand for a full resentencing based on this inconsistency alone.
5th Circuit
United States v. Rudolph, (No. 21-30739)(5th Cir. May 30, 2024)– When the government fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to support a sentencing enhancement, it has failed to meet its burden. And when the district court adopts “facts” in a PreSentence Report that lack an adequate evidentiary basis with sufficient indicia of reliability, it has committed clear error. Here, The “fact” that Rudolph was revoked in 2004 for his 1996 drug conviction does not have an adequate evidentiary basis, and, therefore, the district court should not have adopted this “fact” as true. The application of the career offender enhancement to Gene Rudolph’s conviction was error. Therefore, the Court VACATED Rudolph’s sentence and REMANDED for resentencing.
6th Circuit
In RE: West, (No. 23-1792)(May 29, 2024)– West is serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a conviction that the district judge who oversaw his prosecution has now attributed to a sentencing error. West’s conviction and unlawful sentence stem from his 2010 indictment on a charge of conspiracy to use interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder for hire. The district court sentenced West under the federal murder-for-hire statute, which imposes a sentence of life imprisonment in cases where “death results.” The jury was not instructed that death was an element of West’s offense, was not asked to determine whether West’s offense resulted in death, and returned no special finding on the issue. Sentencing West to life imprisonment under these circumstances— when the conviction the jury actually returned “carried a statutory maximum penalty of ten years”—violated West’s “constitutional rights as set forth in Apprendi. After being denied relief under § 2255 and a Rule 60(b) motion was construed as a second or successive § 2255 motion, the district court’s order construing West’s motion as a second or successive § 2255 motion was VACATED and the motion was REMANDED to the district court to consider under Rule 60(b).
DC Circuit
United States v. Robertson, (No. 22-3062)(DC Cir. May 28, 2024)– Thomas Robertson participated in the riot that took place on January 6, 2021, at the United States Capitol. The riot interrupted and delayed Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote that determined the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. A jury convicted Robertson of obstructing the vote certification, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). In this appeal, Robertson challenges his 87-month sentence, making new arguments on appeal that the district court erred in applying two specific offense characteristics for obstruction of the “administration of justice.” The district court’s application of the offense characteristics for obstructing the “administration of justice” is plainly erroneous. The Court therefore vacated the district court’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Latest Bureau of Prison’s Statistics (From BOP Website):Fair Sentencing/Retroactive Sentence Reductions 4,142 Orders Granted to date.
Elderly Offender Home Confinement 1,246. Approved to date.
First Step Act Releases 33,521 granted to date.
Compassionate Releases/Reduction in Sentences 4,722 granted to date.
Population in RRC’s 8,279.
Population in Home Confinement 5,005.
Please note below that Lily will be taking over Carina’s position for Spanish Speaking clients. We can help anyone interested in putting together a package to apply for clemency or pardons. The better the package, the better the chance. In the past, we have had many people get clemencies, computations of sentences and a few pardons.
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. Our FREE LOOK program ended Monday, April 1, 2024. We had hundreds of inquiries, but not many people actually qualified. Instead, we suggest that you opt for a Written Case Evaluation (“WCE”) as soon as possible to determine all remedies available to you to gain relief including all of the recent Amendments.
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.