ALERT – ALERT – ALERT – 05-27-2025

Satellite Law Office of Tom Norrid

SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC

4415 Gladstone Blvd.

Kansas City, MO 64123

attorneytnorridnews@gmail.com

samaritanprojects@gmail.com

SUPREME COURT GRANTED CERTIORARI ON WHETHER POSSIBLE 2255 CLAIMS CAN PROVIDE BASIS FOR 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) SENTENCE REDUCTION.

Joe Fernandez v. United States, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2005 (S. Ct. May 27, 2025).

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255.

Fernandez is currently serving a mandatory life sentence for two murders that occurred in 2000, which he maintains he did not commit. The convictions were based predominantly on a cooperating witness’s purported firsthand knowledge of Fernandez’s involvement, notwithstanding the cooperating witness’s history of lying to the Government, his motivation to lie in this case to protect his brother, and his testimony’s consistency with the physical evidence.

On direct appeal, Fernandez argued the evidence was insufficient because the cooperating witness’s testimony wasuncorroborated. United States v Fernandez, 648 Fed. Appx. 56(2d Cir. 2016). The Second Circuit deferred to the jury’s assessment of credibility regarding the cooperating witness’s testimony. Id.

Fernandez filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion claiming actual innocence and improper jury instructions. Fernandez v. United States, 569 F.Supp.3d 169 (S.D. New York). The District Court vacated the 18 U.S.C. 924(c) charge. Id. The Court commented in a footnote that Fernandez might be innocent. Id. n. 4.

Fernandez filed an 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release arguing actual innocence in light of the cooperating witness’s reliability. United States v. Fernandez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209086 (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 17, 2022). The District Court granted the motion and reduced Fernandez’ssentence to time served. Id.

The Government appealed and the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. United States v. Fernandez, 104 F.4th 420 (2nd Cir. 2024). Fernandez filed his petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court which the Court granted.

The Supreme Court stated the following: whether under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court has broad discretion to reduce the term of imprisonment in any case if it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” The sole limitation Congress placed on that discretion is found in 18 U.S.C. 994(t), which provides that “[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.” In reversing the district court’s grant of compassionate release to Joe Fernandez, the Second Circuit held that it was an abuse of discretion for the court to have considered evidence bearing on Fernandez’s potential innocence as well to have found a disparity in sentences between Fernandez and several of his co-defendants who were cooperating witnesses. That decision was contrary to decisions of the First and Ninth Circuits, which have each held that district courts are not restricted with respect to matters they may consider under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) other than as set forth by Congress.

QUESTION PRESENTED:

Whether the Second Circuit erred in recognizing extra-textual limitations on what information a court may consider when determining whether there exist extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A).

THIS IS A BIG CASE AND WILL AFFECT MANY PEOPLE. CAN YOU RAISE ACTUAL INNOCENCE IN A COMPASSIONATE RELEASE MOTION? WE WILL KNOW WHEN THE COURT DECIDES THIS CASE. ALSO, WE BELIEVE THE SUPREME COURT WILL GRANT CERTIORARI IN THE RUTHERFORD CASE.