top of page

SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – 01-13-2025

russellmarks417

The Law Office of Tom Norrid

SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC 

P.O. Box 9244

Springfield, MO 65801-9244

Rusty 417-236-1179



The SAMARITAN-PROJECT prepares post-conviction and compassionate release motions under the direction of Attorney Tom Norrid. The Project retrieves documents at reasonable prices. The Project newsletter reports every winning published district court and court of appeals case for the week in review.


CR.RIS/MEDICAL/USSG 1B1.13(b)(6). The District of Kansas granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Marcus Smith, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4464 (D. Kan. Jan. 9, 2025). On April 9, 2007, Smith pled guilty to a six-count indictment—two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 USC 2113(a); two counts of brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 USC 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); and two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1). In March 2008, defendant was sentenced to 430 months' imprisonment. At that time, his two convictions under 924(c) required a minimum seven-year consecutive sentence on the first conviction and a minimum twenty-five-year consecutive sentence on the second conviction; hence, his stacked firearms convictions account for 384 months of his overall 430-month sentence. Judgment was entered on March 25, 2008. Smith did not file a direct appeal of his convictions or sentences. Smith satisfies the prerequisites of the first condition under USSG 1B1.13(b)(6). Sentence reduced to time served.


APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Thuy Luong, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 416 (4th Cir. Jan. 8, 2025). The defendant, Thuy Tien Luong, was convicted of forced labor in violation of 18 USC 1589. Luong used threats and coercion to force the victim, a nail technician, to continue working against her will. The victim, who had a limited education and poor English skills, was subjected to physical abuse and threats of reputational harm and legal consequences by Luong. The victim was coerced into writing checks for alleged mistakes and a fabricated debt of $180,000. The abuse included physical violence, such as beatings and threats, which led to visible injuries and scars on the victim. The case was initially reviewed by the Western District of North Carolina. After a five-day trial, the jury found Luong guilty of forced labor. At sentencing, the district court applied several enhancements, including a two-level vulnerable victim enhancement and a four-level permanent scarring enhancement, resulting in a final offense level of 37. Luong was sentenced to 180 months in prison. She appealed her conviction and sentence, arguing insufficient evidence for her conviction and errors in the application of sentencing enhancements. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Luong's conviction, finding substantial evidence that she knowingly coerced the victim into forced labor through threats and physical abuse. However, the court vacated and remanded her sentence for resentencing. The court found that the district court did not provide sufficient findings to support the application of the two-level vulnerable victim enhancement under USSG 3A1.1(b)(1). The court upheld the four-level permanent scarring enhancement under USSG. 2H4.1(b)(1)(A), finding sufficient evidence that the victim's scars were permanent.


APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Brian Bright, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 110 (4th Cir. Jan. 3, 2025). Between Sept. 2021 and Jan. 2022, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, along with local law enforcement in Sanford, North Carolina, coordinated controlled buys of narcotics using a confidential informant (CI). The CI purchased drugs from various individuals, including the appellant, Brian Thomas Bright. The CI primarily interacted with Keyonta McDougald, who facilitated drug buys from Bright. Bright also directed William Samuel Pergerson to assist in drug transactions. Bright and seven others were indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine. The Middle District of North Carolina sentenced Bright to 97 months of imprisonment after he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated Bright’s base offense level as 26, with a three-point enhancement for a managerial role under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) 3B1.1(b). Bright objected to the enhancement, arguing that his criminal activity involved fewer than five participants. The district court overruled the objection, finding that the three-level enhancement was appropriate due to the extent of Bright’s involvement in the conspiracy. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and found that the district court committed procedural error by not making the necessary findings regarding the scope of the criminal activity and the number of participants involved, as required by Guidelines 1B1.3 and United States v. Evans. The Fourth Circuit vacated Bright’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, instructing the district court to make the requisite particularized findings or determine if the criminal activity was "otherwise extensive."

APPEAL/2255/RESENTENCE. The Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Johnathon Rose, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 55 (8th Cir. Jan. 3, 2024). In Jan. 2020, Detective Josh Winter of the Clinton, Iowa Police Department stopped Johnathon Lawrence Rose for having heavily-tinted windows which violated Iowa law. During the stop, Rose's behavior made Winter nervous prompting him to request a canine unit. The drug-detection dog alerted to the presence of drugs, leading to a search of Rose's car, where officers found drug paraphernalia and suspected drug residue. Rose was arrested and further searches at the police department and his residence revealed more drugs, ammunition, and firearms. Rose was indicted for possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute and unlawfully possessing a firearm as a felon. The Southern District of Iowa held an evidentiary hearing and denied Rose's motion to suppress the evidence. Rose entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. The district court determined Rose was a career offender and sentenced him to 210 months of imprisonment. Rose appealed and the Eighth Circuit affirmed his sentence. Rose then filed a motion for relief under 28 USC 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court agreed, vacated his sentence, and reimposed it, allowing Rose to appeal again. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, finding no constitutional violations in the traffic stop, searches, or Rose's incriminating statements. However, the court reversed Rose's sentence, agreeing with the Government's concession that the case must be remanded for resentencing in light of a recent decision in United States v. Daye, 90 F.4th 941 (8th Cir. 2024), which impacted the classification of Rose as a career offender. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Marquis Jones, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 309 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025). 

Jones appealed his sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised release term. He argued that the district court plainly erred in failing to consider the guidelines range before imposing a sentence. After review, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. Here, there is no indication that the district court considered the sentencing guidelines prior to imposing Jones’s sentence. The district court did not mention the guidelines at sentencing. Further, there is no guidelines calculation elsewhere in the record. Given the lack of evidence in the record related to the guidelines, the court cannot say that the district court considered or was even aware of the relevant guidelines range, which constitutes a significant procedural error. Accordingly, the court vacated Jones’s sentence, and remanded for resentencing.


APPEAL/1983. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded Shawn Sheltra v. Christensen, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32929 (9th Cir. Dec. 31, 2024). Sheltra is an inmate at the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC), filed a formal grievance in March, identifying safety concerns and threats from other inmates in his housing unit. He warned he would be attacked in April if he did not make an extortion payment. Despite being briefly isolated, Sheltra was returned to his housing unit and attacked by another inmate in April. He subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments due to the defendants' failure to protect him from a known harm. The District of Idaho granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because Sheltra did not file a formal grievance after the April attack. The court also granted summary judgment for the defendants on Sheltra's official-capacity claims as they were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and adopted the continuing-violations doctrine for purposes of administrative exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court held a properly exhausted prison grievance asserting one continuing harm or a single course of conduct can exhaust events arising out of the same alleged violation that occur after the grievance was made. Applying this doctrine, the court concluded that Sheltra's attack was part of the same continuing harm or course of conduct described in his prison grievance before the attack. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's summary judgment on Sheltra's individual-capacity claims against the defendants. However, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants on Sheltra's official-capacity claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity.


12 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – 02-03- 2025

The Law Office of Tom Norrid SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC P.O. Box 9244 Springfield, MO 65801-9244 attorneytnorridnews@gmail.com...

SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – 01-27- 2025

SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC P.O. Box 9244 Springfield, MO 65801-9244 attorneytnorridnews@gmail.com samaritanprojects@gmail.com   The...

SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – 01=20- 2025

The Law Office of Tom Norrid SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC  P.O. Box 9244 Springfield, MO 65801-9244 Rusty 417-236-1179 – Eddie 417-818-1938...

Comments


  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
bottom of page