ALERT 2020 — Bi-Weekly Newsletter (November 17–28, 2025)

Coleman v. Dotson, No. 20-7083 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025)

Coleman, a decorated Army sergeant with multiple TBIs and PTSD, pled guilty to Virginia offenses and received 46 years—well above the guideline range. At sentencing, his lawyer failed to present strong mitigation about combat injuries and mental health and did not object when the judge relied on expunged juvenile charges.

The Fourth Circuit held: counsel’s performance was constitutionally ineffective and prejudicial. It reversed and ordered the district court to grant habeas relief unless Virginia gives Coleman a full new sentencing within a reasonable time.

What it could mean for you: If you’re in MD, VA, WV, NC, or SC and (1) your sentencing lawyer ignored serious mental-health/PTSD or military evidence, or (2) the judge relied on expunged or barred priors, note “Coleman-type mitigation issue” in a WCE request.

United States v. Mitchell, No. 24-60607 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025)

Mitchell’s felon-in-possession case under § 922(g)(1) used a prior § 922(g)(3) marijuana-user gun conviction as the only felony. There was no proof he was actually intoxicated while armed in either case.

A divided Fifth Circuit applied Bruen and held that historical laws support temporary bans while intoxicated—not a lifetime ban based solely on a prior marijuana-user gun conviction with no intoxication proof. It ruled § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to Mitchell, reversed the denial of his motion to dismiss, and vacated his conviction and sentence. This is a narrow, as-applied ruling—not a global strike-down of § 922(g)(1).

What it could mean for you: If you’re in TX, LA, or MS and your § 922(g)(1) case used a § 922(g)(3) drug-user gun case as the only prior felony—and there’s no proof you were actually intoxicated while armed—note “Mitchell/Bruen-type Second Amendment issue” in a WCE request.

United States v. Felton, No. 23-1352 (7th Cir. Nov. 25, 2025)

Police obtained a warrant to place a GPS tracker on a car Felton drove, based largely on a confidential informant who claimed Felton was making meth runs. The affidavit gave almost no information about the informant’s reliability, criminal history, or deals, and there were no controlled buys or seizures to back up the tip.

The Seventh Circuit found: the affidavit did not establish probable cause, and missing credibility information about the CI meant the usual “good faith” shield might not apply. The court reversed and sent the case back for a Franks hearing to decide whether those omissions were intentional or reckless. If they were, the warrant and GPS evidence could be suppressed.

What it could mean for you: If you’re in IL, IN, or WI and your warrant depended heavily on a confidential informant—and the affidavit hid or glossed over CI motives, deals, or background—note “Felton/Franks CI-warrant issue” in a WCE request, and (if possible) have family send any warrant/affidavit you can obtain.

United States v. Hebert, No. 24-7030 (10th Cir. Nov. 18, 2025)

Hebert was convicted under the General Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1152), which in the Tenth Circuit requires the Government to prove he is a non-Indian. That means proving either no Indian blood or no recognition by any tribe or the federal government.

The Government’s proof was thin: a stepdaughter who only said she didn’t know of any tribal membership, vague racial labels (white/Latino/“part Mexican”), and his failure to volunteer Indian status to officers.

The Tenth Circuit held: this was speculation, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It vacated the conviction and ordered the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal—no federal retrial on that charge.

What it could mean for you: If you’re in CO, KS, NM, OK, UT, or WY and your case involves Indian country jurisdiction—and the proof of your Indian/non-Indian status was assumed, label-based, or otherwise thin—note “Hebert jurisdiction / Indian-status issue” in a WCE request.

United States v. Comey, 1:25-cr-00272 (E.D. Va.) & United States v. James, 2:25-cr-00122 (E.D. Va.)

On November 24, 2025, Senior U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed both cases—not because the government proved the defendants innocent, but because the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, was never lawfully appointed as U.S. Attorney. No lawful appointment = no lawful authority to bring those indictments.

Rare development: Before dismissal, a magistrate judge ordered the government to turn over grand jury transcripts to Comey’s defense. That almost never happens. The defense presented specific examples of possible misconduct—bad legal instructions, possible attorney-client privilege violations, questionable searches, and even concerns the grand jury never approved the final indictment.