U. S. Supreme Court Happenings, Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions and Other News for the Week of November 11-15, 2024--
U. S. Supreme Court Happenings– Week Ending November 15, 2024 –
The Justices had their November 15, 2024 conference today. We expect Orders next week. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court held oral in Delligatti v.
United States, (No. 23-825)(S. Ct. Cert. Granted June 3, 2024). Here is the question presented in the petitioner's brief:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), a felony qualifies as a “crime of violence” if it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of
another.”
Courts have disagreed about how to apply use-of-force language to crimes that require proof of a victim’s bodily injury or death but can be committed by failing to take action. In the
decision below, the Second Circuit held that any crime requiring proof of death or bodily injury categorically involves the use of physical force, even if it can be committed through
inaction — such as by failing to provide medicine to someone who is sick or by failing to feed a child.
The question presented is: Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force.
Delligatti shows how the categorical approach relies on hairsplitting legal hypotheticals and reaches absurd results.... So long as the Supreme Court remains supportive of the categorical
approach and requires its implementation when analyzing elements clauses, lower courts cannot simply get rid of the categorical approach. However, Congress can get rid of Section 924(c),
with minimal consequences.
No one is expecting Congress to get rid of 924(c) mandatory minimums anytime soon, but it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court is willing to keep advancing limiting constructions
of this statute.
4th Circuit
United States v. Laffitte, (No. 23-4509)(4th Cir. November 14, 2024)– Laffitte appealed his convictions for bank and wire fraud in the district court. He also appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for judgment as a matter of law and two motions for a new trial. Because the Court found that the removal of Juror No. 88 violated Laffitte’s Fifth Amendment right to be present and Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, the Court found find that the district court abused its discretion and vacated Laffitte’s convictions and sentence and remanded for a new trial. After a grand jury indicted Taylor for being a felon in possession of a firearm, he moved to suppress evidence from the search that led to the discovery of the firearm, arguing that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him beyond the time necessary to issue him a traffic citation. The district court denied Taylor’s motion to suppress. Taylor appealed the denial. Because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to prolong the traffic stop, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Taylor’s motion to suppress.
6th Circuit
United States v. Taylor, (No. 23-5344)(6th Cir. November 15, 2024)-- A police officer stopped Taylor for speeding on an interstate in Knoxville, Tennessee. Based on Taylor’s supposed suspicious activities during the traffic stop, the officer requested a K-9 unit to conduct a dog sniff. The dog sniff suggested the presence of drugs in Taylor’s vehicle. This gave law enforcement probable cause to search Taylor’s vehicle. The search did not uncover drugs. But it did lead to the discovery of a firearm, which presented a problem for Taylor because, as a felon, he could not lawfully possess a firearm.
9th Circuit
United States v. Holmes, (No. 22-10266)(9th Cir. November 13, 2024)– The panel reversed the district court’s denial of Aaron Holmes’s motion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement and images found on his cellphone, and remanded for further proceedings. In his suppression motion, Holmes argued that this evidence was obtained because Agent Steele unlawfully viewed Facebook images. The Government did not dispute that Agent Steele unlawfully viewed these images, but argued that suppression is unwarranted because two exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement apply: officer good faith and inevitable discovery. The panel rejected the Government’s argument that the inevitable- discovery exception applied. As to the Government’s preserved argument that Special Agent Candace Rose would have separately and lawfully obtained the same evidence through her parallel investigation of one of the tips, the panel concluded (1) whether Agent Rose would have obtained a warrant to search Holmes’s residence requires impermissible speculation, and (2) even if Agent Rose inevitably would have obtained a search warrant for Holmes’s residence, the Government failed to show that the evidence obtained by Agent Steele inevitably would have been found by Agent Rose.
OTHER NEWSThis week one of our associates, Lisa Law (Thomas L. Root), has written interesting articles regarding the future with Trump as President regarding our cause. Since Lisa Law is no longer emailing its Newsletters to federal prisoners, we want to share a few of his thoughts here:
1. Trump on Firearms:
Trump promises to bring a pro-gun, conservative criminal justice policy back to Washington. As for § 922(g)(1), however, there is a collision of two issues: one he likes – 2nd Amendment gun
rights – and one he doesn’t – which is appearing to be soft on crime. What may bother Trump is knowing that even as President, he cannot legally possess a gun or ammo as long as his 34 New
York felony convictions stand. While he may not publicly endorse an effort to rewrite § 922(g)(1), he could instruct his Attorney General to soft pedal opposition to cases holding that the
statute is unconstitutional as applied to nonviolent felons. That way, felon-in-possession would no longer apply to Trump… or to a lot of people convicted of § 922(g)(1). However, do not
expect Trump or the new Republican-controlled Congress to do anything to change 18 USC § 924(c) to ease punishments for people possessing or using guns in crimes of violence or drug offenses.
See Lisa Law Article, November 12, 2024.
2. Trump on Marijuana
For fifty years, the federal government had classified marijuana as more dangerous than opium and fentanyl. Not anymore: President Biden’s directive two years ago that pot be rescheduled led
to a recommendation last spring from Dept of Health and Human Services that marijuana be reclassified as a Schedule 3 drug, down from Schedule 1. The Drug Enforcement Administration has a
hearing set for Dec 2 on the proposal and will probably agree. On the campaign trail, Trump at several points called for the death penalty for drug dealers, but then endorsed a Florida
marijuana legalization ballot initiative (that failed to pass). “As we legalize it (marijuana) throughout the country, whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, it’s awfully hard to have
people all over the jails that are in jail right now for something that’s legal,” Trump said last August. In an online post, Trump said, “I believe it is time to end needless arrests and
incarcerations of adults for small amounts of marijuana for personal use.” See Lisa Law Article, November 13, 2024.
With regard to clemencies, anyone who previously filed for clemency, but not on the new forms which the Biden released earlier, they need to be refiled with a clemency package to be considered by the out-going Biden administration. Further, we suggest that January 6th defendants file their clemencies materials to Prez-Elect Trump and his team well before he takes office on January 20, 2025. In order to help anyone who is interested in filing the new clemency papers and clemency package, Alert2020 is offering a special in order to get them completed ASAP before Biden leaves office and Trump takes office. Our clemency evaluation telephone number for the above is (832) 346-0220.
The new U. S. Sentencing Guideline Amendments become effective today, November 1, 2024. Those Amendments include: (1) Acquitted Conduct; (2) Rule for Calculating Loss; (3) Circuit Conflicts; (4) Youthful Individuals; and (5) Miscellaneous. We have also received a lot of inquiries about 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) & 924(c) convictions based on the recent Rahimi decision and circuit decisions such as Range and Williams based on last year’s Bruen Supreme Court decision. Beginning October 25, 2024 until November 8, 2024, we will be evaluating cases for the new Amendments and/or the firearm convictions. Howeverk contrary to inmate rumor at inmate.com, there are no changes to § 924(c) convictions. We will need an outside contact’s name and telephone number, where you went to court, and your case number. We will contact your contact and let them know if you have any potential relief available from the above remedies. Our case evaluation telephone number for the above is (832) 346-0220.
The CorrLinks/TRULINCS website has been changed. A new policy effective September 30, 2024, where the BOP is only allowing groups of ten (10) emails may be sent out at a time. Alert2020 has several different emails which we have acquired through all the years we have produced and published the Alert Update. Currently, we have groups of 1000 inmates so that when we send out the weekly Alert Update, we can send out 1000 emails at a time and we do that to all the thousands of readers and our followers each week. Of course, all of our newsletter can also be found on our website at: federal-alert.com. We have had our technicians put all of our groups in groups of ten. As such, we have about 5,000 groups of 10, whereas before we had about 50 groups of 1000. Therefore, it will take us considerable more time to distribute the newsletter and we may have to eventually charge a subscription fee. We thank all of the people who are posting the newsletter in the law libraries at the institutions. Anyone else who is interested please let us know.
For the last 30 years, we have been very successful 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 you 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.
We are attempting to keep weekly service. However, the newsletter may arrive later because of number of emails that must be sent out now. We thank all of the volunteers who have committed to posting the newsletter in the law libraries. Anyone who works in the law library or has access to post the newsletter, we welcome your help.
Beginning January 1, 2025, we will start our own paid newsletter subscription service. Inmates who wish to continuously receive weekly ALERT Update are required to pay a $24.99 subscription fee to cover a year's subscription for one (1) inmate/email. This small amount will not only cover our costs, but will allow us to expand our coverage. Should you be interested, your outside contact may call us direct at (832) 346-0220 or you may email us at Alertupdate2020@gmail.com for details.