The Law Office of Tom Norrid
SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC
P.O. Box 9244
Springfield, MO 65801-9244
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/FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES. The District of Minnesota granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Matthew Hines, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20295 (D. Minn. Feb. 5, 2025). Hines was charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court sentenced Hines to124-month. Hines moves for compassionate release based on family circumstances. His wife recently underwent a heart transplant and requires a constant caregiver during her recovery. She requires constant care and there is no other family member that is available to care for her during recovery. Sentence reduced to time served.
CR.RIS/STACKING. The District of Maryland granted in part a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Darrell Gilchrist, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19194 (D. Md. Feb. 4, 2025). Gilchrist was sentenced in 2003 for three separate armed bank robberies and accompanying charges. He is serving an aggregate 112-year sentence. His three consecutive 25-year sentences for use of a firearm in crimes of violence pursuant to 18 USC 924(c) were mandatory at the time of his sentencing and would not be imposed today. Today, he would be subject to 15 years minimum for those three convictions, not 75 years. His conduct while in prison and the changes in criminal law and sentencing jurisprudence counsel in favor of some sentence reduction. It was appropriate to reduce the sentence to 37 years consisting of concurrent terms of 15 years (or less) on all of the underlying offenses, and consecutive terms adding up to 22 years for the four 924(c) convictions (7 + 5 + 5 + 5).
CR.RIS/REHABILITATION. The District of Connecticut granted in part a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Keith Jordan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18607 (D. Conn. Feb. 3, 2025). Jordan sought a reduction in sentence because of his long sentence, low risk of recidivism, rehabilitation while in BOP custody, otherwise nonexistent criminal history, and experience of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic. The 3553(a) factors counsel in favor of some sort of reduction in Jordan's sentence. Except for the instant conviction, Jordan has no prior criminal history, a long history of prior employment, and an exemplary record while in BOP custody. While the court declined to reduce Jordan's sentence to time served, it concluded Jordan's sentence should be reduced from 120 months to 84 months.
CR.RIS/DISPARITY. The Middle District of North Carolina granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Randall Webb, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18396 (M.D. N.C. Feb 3, 2025). Defendant pled guilty to two counts of carrying and use, by brandishing, a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence under 18 USC 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 2. The defendant was sentenced to 384 months. Defendant asked to be released because his current sentence is based on the "stacking" of his 924(c) convictions, a procedure no longer allowed. He argued his case presents extraordinary and compelling reasons because if he was sentenced today his mandatory sentence for the same conduct would be reduced from 32 to 14 years, and his case presents a "gross disparity between the sentence imposed and the one he would likely receive today." The defendant correctly argued that as the law now exists, Count Five could not be treated as a second or successive offense under 924(c). The Court found defendant had established an extraordinary and compelling reason to support a reduction of sentence. The defendant was 24 years-old at the time of sentencing, and prior to these offenses his criminal history was minimal and non-violent. At the time of the offenses the defendant was suffering from addiction and substance abuse which may have contributed to his criminal behavior. Defendant has worked to address his addictions while incarcerated. The court reduced the 300-month sentence to 168 months.
AMENDMENT 821. The Eastern District of California granted a 821 Amendment motion in United States v. Charles Abienga, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20002 (E.D. Calif. Feb. 4, 2025). Abienga was sentenced to 65-months with 36 months of supervisory release following his guilty plea to one count of Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud, 18 USC 1349, and one count of Aggravated Identity Theft, 18 USC 1028A. At the time of sentencing, the court found his offense level to be 22, and since defendant had zero criminal history points, his Criminal History was determined to be Category I. The defendant received 41 months for the wire fraud count and 24 months for the identity theft count to be served consecutively. The court reduced the sentence to 57 months.
APPEAL/PROFFER. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Juan Grogan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2354 (6th Cir. Feb. 3, 2025). A jury convicted Grogan of possessing a firearm a felon, possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute. At trial, the judge allowed the Government to admit testimony about a series of statements that Grogan made during a proffer session. The statements concerned his ownership of drugs, a firearm, and a wallet, and his involvement in a shooting and a kidnapping. On appeal, Grogan argued the admission of this evidence was an error. Under the proffer agreement, the Government could introduce a particular statement from the proffer session if Grogan testified or presented arguments inconsistent with that statement. Grogan contended admission of the evidence was an error because neither of these conditions were met. The court agreed with him that at least some of these statements should not have been admitted. Because the error was not harmless, the court reversed and remanded.
APPEAL/ALLOCUTE/RESENTENCE. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Deonte Wright, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2325 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2025). Wright appealed the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months imprisonment. He argued the district court erred by (1) admitting evidence in violation of his Fifth Amendment due process rights and (2) failing to offer him the opportunity to allocute. Wright’s first argument provides no relief because any error made in admitting the contested evidence was harmless. The court affirmed the district court’s revocation of Wright’s supervised release, but because the district court plainly erred by failing to personally extend Wright an invitation to allocate the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Christopher Easterling, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2376 (7th Cir. 2025). Easterling attempted to rob a Walgreens store on Sept. 15, 2019, by brandishing a firearm and demanding money from the cashier, who fled. Easterling did not take anything and was apprehended. He was charged with interference with commerce by robbery, carrying and using a firearm during a crime of violence, and possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. Easterling pled guilty to all charges. The Southern District of Illinois sentenced Easterling to 239 months, which was above the advisory guidelines range of 141 to 155 months. The sentence included 155 months for the robbery, 120 months for the firearm possession (to run concurrently), and a consecutive 84 months for using a firearm during a crime of violence. Easterling appealed and the Seventh Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing after the Supreme Court ruled that attempted Hobbs Act robbery is not a "crime of violence," invalidating one of his convictions.
APPEAL/ACCA. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Aunyis Cherry, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22-13968 (11th Cir. Feb. 5, 2025). Cherry appealed his 275-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1). At sentencing, the district court determined he had three prior convictions for serious drug offenses and thus was subject to an enhanced sentence under the ACCA, 18 USC 924(e). Cherry challenged the application of the ACCA enhancement. He argued the district court erred in treating his three Florida state convictions for sale or delivery of cocaine as serious drug offenses under the ACCA because, at the time he committed those offenses, Florida law defined cocaine more broadly than federal law. Cherry filed a motion for summary reversal which the Government did not oppose. The court granted the motion and vacated Cherry’s sentence and remanded for resentencing.
APPEAL/922(g)(3). The Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Keshon Baxter, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24-1164 (8th Cir. Feb. 5, 2025). Baxter was charged with being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm. Police encountered Baxter and found a loaded pistol and a baggie of marijuana on him. Baxter moved to dismiss the charge arguing the statute under which he was charged, 18 USC 922(g)(3), violated the Second Amendment as applied to him and was unconstitutionally vague. The Eighth Circuit reversed the ruling on the as-applied Second Amendment challenge, and remanded for further proceedings.
APPEAL/922(g)(3). The Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. LaVance Cooper, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24-1998 (8th Cir. Feb. 5, 2025). Cooper was found guilty of being a drug user in possession of a firearm after officers discovered a Glock 20 pistol in his car during a traffic stop. Cooper argued his prosecution under 18 USC 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment, but the district court disagreed maintaining the statute applied categorically to all drug users. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for a reexamination of Cooper's motion to dismiss the indictment, instructing the lower court to determine whether Cooper's specific circumstances justified disarmament under the Second Amendment.
コメント