top of page

SAMARITAN ALERT- UNITED STATES v. McCALL

The Law Office of Tom Norrid

SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC

P.O. Box 9244

Springfield, MO 65801-9244

417-236-1179

 

ALERT – ALERT – ALERT – ALERT

 

COMPASSIONATE RELEASE GRANTED IN THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ACKNOWLEDGING USSG 1B1.13(b)(6), AND STATES THE AMENDMENT IS VALID IN LIGHT OF UNITED STATES v. McCALL, 56 F.4th 1048 (6th Cir. 2022).

 

The Northern District of Ohio granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Jason Bricker, No. 05-cr-113 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 5, 2024). Before the Court was Bricker’s Motion for Relief under 18 USC 3582. The Court had previously denied multiple motions for reduction of Bricker’s sentence and/or compassionate release. However, since his last filing the Sentencing Commission regained its quorum and issued, among other provisions, USSG 1B1.13(b)(6), which explains that a nonretroactive change in the law creating a gross disparity between a defendant’s sentence (of which he has served at least 10 years) and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed, may be considered an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for purposes of early release. Bricker has served 18 years of a 294-month sentence. If Bricker had been sentenced today, his sentencing guideline range would be between 70-87 months. The Court found that the gross disparity between the current sentencing range and Bricker’s sentence constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason supporting his early release. The Court granted Bricker’s motion for relief under 18 USC 3582 and ordered him to be released within 10 days of this order. To grant a sentence modification pursuant to 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a court may reduce the term of imprisonment if it finds extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction. As an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for sentence reduction, Bricker has identified the disparity between his sentence and the current sentencing range for the same convictions. The Court recognizes that the Sixth Circuit has held that nonretroactive changes in the law are not “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” that can form the basis of a sentence reduction. United States v. McCall, 56 F.4th 1048, 1054 (6th Cir. 2022). However, the McCall decision noted that the Sentencing Commission might amend its policy in the future, which it has now done. The Government urged the Court to disregard the Sentencing Commission’s Guideline and to follow McCall, but the Court was not inclined to do so. The Sentencing Commission promulgated 1B1.13(b)(6) in response to a circuit split of which McCall was a part. United States v. Brown, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18673, at *13-14 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2024). Moreover, McCall was issued in the absence of an applicable policy statement, and explicitly left open the possibility that a provision such as 1B1.13(b)(6) could abrogate its holding. Id. at

*17-18.

25 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – 05-20-2024

The Law Office of Tom Norrid SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC P.O. Box 9244 Springfield, MO 65801-9244 417-236-1179 The SAMARITAN-PROJECTS prepares post-conviction and compassionate release motions along with a

SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – 05-14-2024

The Law Office of Tom Norrid SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC P.O. Box 9244 Springfield, MO 65801-9244 417-236-117 The SAMARITAN-PROJECTS prepares post-conviction and compassionate release motions along with ap

Comments


bottom of page