U. S. Supreme Court Happenings and Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of May 6-10, 2024--

U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week ending May 10, 2024 –

The Justices held their May 9, 2024 conference. We expect Orders on May 13, 2024.

The Supreme Court has about 8 weeks to issue over 40 opinions in cases argued this Term if it is going to wrap its work before the start of July (as is its yearly custom). That means we could and should expect about five rulings per week, on average, though we expect we will get fewer than that number through May and perhaps a lot more the last few weeks of June. We always forcus on the Court's criminal justice work. In that space, we count nearly a dozen notable criminal cases still pending, some constitutional and some statutory. Though a number of these could be blockbusters, there are at least three constitutional cases that we are especially eager to see the Court's opinions. In these three cases, based in part on oral argument, we are already pretty sure which party is likely to prevail, but just how the opinions are written could still prove really interesting:

United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915 [Arg: 11.7.2023]
Erlinger v. United States, No. 23-370 [Arg: 3.27.2024]
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, No. 23-175 [Arg: 4.22.2024]

In all of these cases, dealing with the Second, Sixth and Eighth Amendments, respectively, just how the Court gets to its results could matter a whole lot. However, we strongly doubt we will get any of these rulings before the last few weeks of June (though Erlinger may be coming a bit earlier). In the meantime, there are more than a few other criminal cases that could prove important and interesting. Indeed, that Culley v. Marshall, No. 22-585 (argued October 30) and Brown v. United States, No. 22-6389 (argued November 27) have not yet been resolved has us wondering if intriguing opinions are in the works. Stay tuned.

Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of May 6-10, 2024 –

1st Circuit

United States v. Cora-Alicea, (No. 23-1927) (3rd Cir. May 6, 2024)– Federal sentencing involves a three-step process. District courts must first calculate the initial Guidelines range, then rule on any motions to depart from the initial range and state the final, departed-to range, and—finally—exercise discretion to choose a sentence within or outside the final range based on the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Step-two deviations from the initial range (“departures”) are based on specific Guidelines provisions, whereas step-three deviations from the final range (“variances”) are based on the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Things went awry in this case during step three. Cora-Alicea sought a variance to a below-Guidelines range sentence of time served. But the District Court erroneously concluded that all but one of his grounds for a variance (the unavailability of the two-level reduction for having zero criminal history points) had already been accounted for by the downward adjustments for safety valve eligibility, minor role, and acceptance of responsibility applied in step one’s Guidelines calculation. This is incorrect as a matter of law. The Court vacated Cora-Alicea’s sentence and remanded his case to the District Court for resentencing.

9th Circuit

United States v. Duarte, (No.22-50048)(9th Cir. May 9, 2024)– Reversing the district court’s judgment, the panel vacated Duarte’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. On appeal, Duarte challenged his conviction on Second Amendment grounds, which the panel reviewed de novo rather than for plain error because Duarte had good cause for not raising the claim in the district court when United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010), foreclosed the argument. The panel held that under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society; and that Vongxay, which did not apply the mode of analysis that Bruen later established and now requires courts to perform, is clearly irreconcilable with Bruen. Applying Bruen’s two-step, text-and-history framework, the panel concluded (1) Duarte’s weapon, a handgun, is an “arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text, that Duarte’s “proposed course of conduct—carrying [a] handgun[] publicly for self-defense”—falls within the Second Amendment’s plain language, and that Duarte is part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects because he is an American citizen; and (2) the government failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)’s categorical prohibition, as applied to Duarte, “is part of the historic tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the” Second Amendment right.

10th Circuit

United States v. Murphy, (No. 22-7021)(10th Cir. May 7, 2024)– Murphy appealed his convictions for murder, murder in perpetration of kidnapping, and kidnapping resulting in death. He raised three issues on appeal. First, he argued that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for murder in perpetration of a kidnapping and kidnapping resulting in death. The Court concluded that Murphy’s first, sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument is persuasive: more specifically, the Court held that even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, it does not show that Murphy held the victim for an appreciable period of time, which is a requirement under the federal kidnapping statute. Accordingly, the Court reversed Murphy’s kidnapping-related convictions and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing.

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

Fair Sentencing/Retroactive Sentence Reductions 4,141 Orders Granted to date.
Elderly Offender Home Confinement 1,246. Approved to date.
First Step Act Releases 32,505 granted to date.
Compassionate Releases/Reduction in Sentences 4,716 granted to date.
Population in RRC’s 8,284.
Population in Home Confinement 4,967.

COMMENT:

Yesterday, a split Ninth Circuit panel handed down a major Second Amendment ruling in United States v. Duarte (above), to become the second circuit to find that the Supreme Court's Bruen ruling renders unconstitutional federal law's criminal prohibition in on gun possession by nonviolent felons. The 60-page opinion for the court was authored by Judge Bea. The location and timing of this ruling is almost as interesting as its substance. Many hundreds of § 922(g)(1) cases are prosecuted in the Ninth Circuit each year, so the echo effects of this ruling could prove profound. And, we are likely only weeks away from the Supreme Court finally handing down an opinion in the Rahimi case to address the application of Bruen to a different section of § 922(g). Most folks reasonably expect the Rahimi ruling to provide more guidance on how the Bruen Second Amdndment test is to be applied to broad federal criminal gun control laws. We would expect coming Rahimi opinion will lead to the Ninth Circuit reviewing this important Duarte ruling in some way, though whether that is in the form of en banc review or panel rehearing might turn on what Rahimi actually says.

Please note below that Lily will be taking over Carina’s position for Spanish Speaking clients. A better week with regard to favorable circuit cases. 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.