U. S. Supreme Court Happenings, Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions and for the Week of October 2-6, 2023--

U. S. Supreme Court Happenings for the Week ending October 6, 2023, 2023 –

The Justices held their first “long conference” on September 26, 2023. The Supreme Court on Friday issued orders from its“long conference”, which yielded 12 new grants, on topics ranging from controversial laws seeking to regulate social media companies to property rights and bankruptcy fees.
The cases granted on Friday will likely be argued in January or February 2024, with a decision to follow by summer [and they include]..

Smith v. Arizona – Whether the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him, allows prosecutors to use expert testimony about evidence – here, a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst who no longer worked at the lab and did not testify at trial – that was not itself admitted into evidence, on the grounds that the testifying expert was simply offering his own opinion and that the defendant could have subpoenaed the original analyst.

McIntosh v. United States – Whether a district court can enter a criminal forfeiture order when the time limit specified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has already passed – here, when the government did not submit a preliminary forfeiture order until more than two-and-a-half years after the defendant was sentenced. Neither of these cases seem especially monumental. Other than Pulsifer, Rahimi and due process/forfeiture cases, there is not that much so far to get excited about the coming Supreme Court Term.

Favorable Federal Circuit Opinions for the Week of October 2-6, 2023 –

1st Circuit

United States v. Quirós-Morales, (No. 22-1643)(1st Cir. October 4, 2023)– The district court denied Quirós’ motion for compassionate release. On appeal, Quirós argued that the district court's denial of his compassionate-release motion flouted the teachings of Ruvalcaba and United States v. Trenkler, 47 F.4th 42 (1st Cir. 2022). There, the Court fleshed out its holding in Ruvalcaba and made pellucid that district courts "may conduct a holistic review to determine whether the [prisoner's] individualized circumstances, taken in the aggregate, present an 'extraordinary and compelling' reason to grant compassionate release." Id. at 47. Most importantly, the district court erred in determining that Quirós's motion had to be denied "as a matter of law" because of his failure "to demonstrate that he suffers from a serious medical condition." The Court added that the types of appropriate circumstances for district courts to consider may include alleged sentencing errors, although "classic post-conviction arguments, without more," generally will not succeed in this inquiry. Id. at 48. The district court's order denying the motion for compassionate release was vacated and the matter was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

7th Circuit

McMullen v. Dalton, (No. 20-3273)(7th Cir. October 4, 2023)– McMullen was convicted of violating Indiana’s drug possession laws and received a lengthy prison sentence. On state postconviction review, he unsuccessfully argued that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. He then sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court denied. McMullen appealed. The state contends his appeal is moot because the Indiana trial court later modified McMullen’s sentence. We do not agree, though, because he is not serving a new sentence. Rather, the court suspended the remainder of McMullen’s sentence and placed him on probation. On McMullen’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, our evaluation of deference to the decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals under the AEDPA, differs from the district court’s. Notwithstanding this difference, this Court agreed with the district court’s conclusion under the performance prong that the decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals was contrary to Strickland. The Court differed with the district court, however, on its conclusion as to the prejudice prong. McMullen satisfied § 2254(d) on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the Court vacated the district court’s decision to deny McMullen’s habeas petition and remanded for an evidentiary hearing and for the district court to consider whether a writ of habeas corpus should issue.

11th Circuit

United States v. Steiger, (No. 22-10742)(11th Cir. October 3, 2023)– Steiger appealed his sentence of 20 years of imprisonment following the revocation of his probation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3565. Steiger argued that, where the Sentencing Guidelines recommended a sentence of 12 to 18 months of imprisonment, his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. One of his arguments is that the district court failed to give a specific reason for imposing an upward variance to the statutory maximum, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). This Court’s precedents establish that when a district court imposes an above-guideline sentence, as the court did here, a specific statement of explanation is required. Further, this Court has “adopted a per se rule of reversal for § 3553(c)(2) errors.” Based upon this Court’s precedents, the Court vacated and remanded for resentencing.

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

Fair Sentencing/Retroactive Sentence Reductions 3,990 Orders Granted to date.
Elderly Offender Home Confinement 1,243 Approved to date.
First Step Act Releases 23,751 granted to date.
Compassionate Releases/Reduction in Sentences 4,622 granted to date.
Population in RRC’s 8,171.
Population in Home Confinement 5,735.

COMMENT:

Anyone who wants to find out if the proposed Sentencing Guideline Amendments may apply to you, or if you believe you have a Dubin, Range/Bruen, Rehaif, Taylor, Concepcion, Ruan, Davis, Earned Time Credit or any other claim and want to see if you have relief coming should opt for a Written Case Evaluation (“WCE”).

Anyone who thinks that they may also qualify for compassionate release under Amendment 814 or any other remedy should request a WCE (we no longer offer Free Lookups). For the last 29 years, we have been very successful on direct appeals, 2255 motions, 2241 Petitions, First Step Act and Compassionate Release Motions, DC Superior Court Petitions, State Post Conviction, Clemencies and Pardons to mention a few avenues for relief. We also can help you with Earned Time Credits and other specialized motions. The WCE is an excellent 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 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.