SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER

09.03.26

United States v. Moneke , 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197911 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2026).

Facts of the Case: Jaelyn Moneke, a transgender man, pled guilty on March 8, 2019 to one count of possession of counterfeit and unauthorized access devices and one count of aggravated identity theft, stemming from a scheme in which he purchased stolen credit and debit card information via an app called ICQ, embossed the data onto Visa Gift Cards, and used them to purchase goods for resale. Moneke possessed at least 2,870 unauthorized account numbers. At his initial sentencing in July 2021, the Court sentenced him to time served followed by supervised release, but the Government appealed arguing the Court failed to impose the mandatory two-year consecutive sentence required for aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. The Second Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for re-sentencing, which ultimately resulted in the Court imposing time served on Count One and two years incarceration on Count Two, to run consecutively, along with restitution of $10,989.23 and forfeiture of $110,000.

Relevance to Compassionate Release: This case is directly relevant to compassionate release motions because defense counsel simultaneously moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that Moneke's circumstances — including his role as sole caretaker for his disabled mother, his status as a transgender man mid-transition with significant medical needs, the BOP's documented inability to adequately care for transgender inmates, his minimal criminal history, and his non-violent offense — collectively constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting release. The case illustrates both the procedural requirements for exhausting administrative remedies and the substantive arguments courts will weigh, making it a useful reference for structuring CR motions involving caregiver responsibilities, medical vulnerability, and non-violent economic offenses.

Pina v. Moniz, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198598 (D.Mass.  September 2, 2026) 

Facts of the Case: Carlos Anibal Correia De Pina, a native of Cape Verde, was admitted to the United States in 2013 and later adjusted his status to conditional lawful permanent resident through marriage to a U.S. citizen. His conditional status terminated in 2020 after he failed to appear for a scheduled interview, and he subsequently divorced. On May 1, 2026, he was arrested by Rhode Island State Police on two misdemeanor charges — first offense DUI and operating under a foreign license during suspension — and was released on a $2,000 bond by the state court the following day. ICE took him into custody on May 14, 2026, and at a June 4, 2026 immigration bond hearing, the Immigration Judge denied bond, finding by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner posed a danger to the community based solely on the police report from the single arrest, without making any reliability finding regarding that report, without considering Petitioner's lack of any prior criminal history, and without meaningfully evaluating any alternatives to detention.

Relevance to Compassionate Release / Habeas Practice: The court granted the habeas petition and ordered immediate release, finding the bond hearing constitutionally deficient on two independent grounds: the IJ relied on an unadjudicated arrest and police report without first determining its reliability, and failed to conduct any individualized analysis of alternatives to detention as required by due process. This case is significant because it reinforces that a single arrest without conviction cannot — standing alone — satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard for dangerousness, and that courts must conduct a genuine totality-of-the-circumstances analysis under Matter of Guerra. It is directly useful in motions challenging pretrial or immigration detention where the government relies on thin or unproven evidence, and supports arguments that procedural deficiencies at the hearing level constitute independent grounds for relief.

Baggott v. Alan Cohen, Warden, FPC Montgomery, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197393

(M.D.Al. September 1, 2026) 

Facts of the Case: Robert Baggott was sentenced on January 21, 2016 in two Texas state court cases for methamphetamine possession, receiving a total of six years to run concurrently. Shortly thereafter he was indicted on federal conspiracy charges, transferred to federal custody on a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, and sentenced on September 22, 2016 to 188 months, with the federal sentence ordered to run concurrently with his state sentences. At sentencing, the federal judge expressly stated on the record that Baggott was entitled to credit for the approximately sixteen months he had already served on his state cases, and the written judgment reflected that he "shall be credited the time in custody he has served on these cases." However, the BOP credited Baggott with only 240 days — roughly eight months — under the Willis exception, leaving 245 days unaccounted for, prompting Baggott to file a § 2241 habeas petition arguing the sentencing court intended a full adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) for all time served on the state sentences prior to federal sentencing.

Relevance to Compassionate Release / Sentence Calculation: The court granted the petition in part, finding that the sentencing transcript clearly demonstrated the judge's intent to adjust the federal sentence by the full 245 days the BOP could not otherwise credit, and that where a written judgment conflicts with an unambiguous oral pronouncement at sentencing, the oral pronouncement controls. This case is directly relevant to any motion involving sentence calculation disputes, prior custody credits, or BOP compliance with a sentencing court's intent, particularly where U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) applies. It also reinforces that a § 2241 petition — not a § 2255 motion — is the proper vehicle for compelling the BOP to implement a sentence as actually pronounced, and that exhaustion requirements may be waived where the government fails to raise the issue and the petitioner is entitled to relief.

2026 Amendments Overview

Simplification — Deletion of Offense Characteristics

The 2026 amendments deleted 26 infrequently used specific offense characteristics from Chapter Two of the Guidelines Manual. The Commission determined these provisions were applied so rarely that they added unnecessary complexity without meaningfully improving sentencing consistency or accuracy.

For practitioners, this streamlines guideline calculations by reducing the number of factors that must be analyzed at sentencing. While the deleted characteristics were rarely triggered, their removal signals the Commission's broader intent to simplify the Manual, and defense counsel should verify whether any deleted characteristic previously applied to their client's offense type, as its removal could affect offense level calculations going forward.

Inflationary Adjustments to Monetary Thresholds

The Commission adjusted all monetary thresholds and fine tables across multiple guidelines — including §§ 2B1.1, 2B3.1, and 5E1.2 — using a Consumer Price Index multiplier tied to 2014 baseline figures to account for over a decade of inflation. This means the dollar amounts that trigger higher offense levels in fraud, theft, and financial crime cases have been raised to reflect current economic realities.

This change is highly significant for practitioners handling white collar, fraud, and financial crime cases because higher loss thresholds mean some defendants will now fall into lower offense level brackets than they would have under the prior thresholds. For compassionate release motions involving defendants sentenced on pre-amendment loss calculations, this could support an argument that the defendant's original guideline range overstated the severity of the offense, potentially strengthening a motion for sentence reduction.

Drug Offenses — Fentanyl-Related Substances

In response to the HALT Fentanyl Act, the Commission added fentanyl-related substances to the Drug Quantity and Drug Equivalency Tables at the same threshold levels as fentanyl analogues. A safety valve provision was also incorporated allowing defendants to rebut the presumption that their substance warrants sentencing at the fentanyl level.

This amendment has significant implications for drug offense sentencing because fentanyl-related substances now carry the same severe weight equivalencies as fentanyl itself, which can dramatically increase offense levels and guideline ranges. However, the safety valve rebuttal provision is an important counterbalance, giving defense counsel a meaningful opportunity to argue that a specific substance should not be treated with the same severity as fentanyl, particularly in cases involving trace amounts or where the defendant had limited knowledge of the substance's classification.

Multiple Counts — Chapter Three Overhaul

The Commission replaced five separate guidelines in Chapter Three, Part D with a single consolidated guideline under § 3D1.1, creating a simplified combined offense level calculation framework designed to be largely outcome-neutral. The prior system was frequently criticized for producing inconsistent and difficult to predict results when defendants faced charges across multiple offense types.

For practitioners, this is one of the most practically impactful changes in the 2026 amendments because multiple count calculations arise in a wide range of federal cases. While the Commission designed the new framework to be outcome-neutral, any time a calculation methodology changes there will be winners and losers, and defense counsel should carefully compare results under both the old and new frameworks — particularly in cases involving stacked charges across different offense categories — to identify whether the amendment produces a more favorable guideline range for their client.

Sentencing Options Clarified — New § 5A1.1

The Commission added a new guideline, § 5A1.1, to Chapter Five with introductory commentary explaining the full range of available sentencing options and the structure of the Sentencing Table. This provision was designed to provide clearer guidance to sentencing courts on the menu of options available when imposing sentence.

While this change is largely structural and educational in nature, it has practical value for defense practitioners because it consolidates in one place a clear articulation of all sentencing alternatives available to the court. This can be useful when arguing for non-incarceratory sentences or alternatives to imprisonment, as counsel can point directly to § 5A1.1 to support the argument that the Guidelines themselves contemplate a broad range of sentencing options beyond straight incarceration.

New Statutory References

The Commission updated § 2H3.1 to include the Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries Act and updated § 2C1.1 to incorporate the Foreign Extortion Prevention Technical Corrections Act, ensuring the Guidelines Manual reflects current federal criminal statutes. These updates align the Guidelines with recently enacted legislation targeting data privacy violations and foreign corruption offenses.

For practitioners, these updates are relevant because they establish the applicable guideline provisions for prosecutions brought under these newer statutes, providing a clearer roadmap for both offense level calculations and available enhancements. Defense counsel handling cases involving data privacy violations or foreign corruption charges should carefully review these updated provisions to understand how the Guidelines will be applied and where arguments for downward departures or variances may be available.

Technical Fixes and Agency Name Corrections

The Commission made a series of technical corrections throughout the Manual, including updating the agency name from "Bureau of Prisons" to "Federal Bureau of Prisons," correcting statutory cross-references, and fixing typographical errors. While these changes are administrative in nature, they reflect the Commission's effort to ensure the Manual is accurate and internally consistent.

For practitioners, the practical takeaway is that any citations to the Guidelines Manual in motions and briefs should now reflect the corrected terminology and updated statutory references to avoid confusion or appearing out of date. More substantively, updated statutory cross-references can affect which guideline provisions apply to a given offense, so counsel should carefully review any statutory reference changes that touch on their client's offense of conviction to ensure the correct guideline is being applied.

SP@NorridLaw.com   Corrlinks

SamaritanProjects.com Website

Rusty 417 236 1179

Steve 816 562 4981

The Samaritan Project

"When No One Else Will Help, We Will"