SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – 05-26-2025

Satellite Law Office of Tom Norrid

SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC 

4415 Gladstone Blvd.

Kansas City, MO 64123

attorneytnorridnews@gmail.com

samaritanprojects@gmail.com

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. Our website –

CR.RIS/MEDICAL. The Middle District of Florida granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Jose Sanchez-Rosado, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94510 (M.D. Fla. May 13, 2025). Defendant was indicted for possession of a firearm having been previously convicted of a felony in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1) and sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years. Defendant submitted he is suffering from medical conditions, placing him at increased risk of an adverse outcome while incarcerated. The Health Services records describe defendant as suffering from hypertension and anxiety disorder. Defendant has been evaluated "on numerous occasions by the Health Services Staff for complaints of palpitations with diaphoresis, chest pain, chest tightness, and shortness of breath." The defendant was referred to the community hospital for the following: management of unremitting cardiac arrhythmias described as atrial fibrillation with fast ventricular response (heart rate up to 155 beats per minute), atrial flutter with heart rate in the 130s and 140s, SVTs treated with IV Cardizem and premature ventricular complexes despite cardiac AF ablation and multiple beta blockers and antiarrhythmic agents under the supervision of Cardiology services. In light of staff's recommendation the defendant be transferred to a medical facility with 24-hour cardiac care, and their observation Coleman is not equipped to treat defendant's severe heart condition, the defendant's continued incarceration at FCC Coleman against medical advice places his life at risk. The defendant established extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release under the "Medical Condition" and the catch-all "Other Reasons" categories. In view of the defendant's critical and chronic medical conditions, which cannot adequately be treated at FCC Coleman, and his father's declining health, compassionate release was warranted. Sentence reduced to time served.

CR.RIS/REHABILITATION/FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES. The Eastern District of California granted in part a CR/RIS motion in United States v. Hormozi, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96230 (E.D. Calif. May 20, 2025). Defendant was convicted on one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 USC 846 and 841(a)(1); two counts of distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 USC 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii); and one count of attempt to distribute oxycodone in violation of 21 USC 841(a)(1). The court sentenced him to 126 months. Defendant argued that compassionate release is warranted based upon extraordinary and compelling reasons including he is needed by his family to help care for his 92-year-old mother for whom he cared during his pretrial release in this case and who is now in hospice care with a terminal diagnosis; under USSG Amendment 821 his criminal history category and advisory sentencing guideline range would have been lower; and his good conduct while in custody as well as his significant post-offense rehabilitation efforts. The court granted a modest six-month reduction of sentence as opposed to the time served reduction requested, and the court found a 120-month sentence was consistent with the sentencing factors set forth at 18 USC 3553(a).

CR.RIS/MEDICAL. The District of Montana granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Rafe Camp, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96084 (D. Mont. May 20, 2025). Camp filed a motion under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A) to reduce his 46-month federal drug sentence. Camp argued the BOP's inadequate medical treatment of his various  medical issues is an extraordinary and compelling reason that warrants his early release, or alternatively, his home confinement. Because Camp was correct and the 3553(a) factors weighed in favor of such a reduction his motion was granted. Camp argued the BOP's inadequate treatment of his medical conditions constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief under 1B1.13(b)(1)(B) and 1B1.13(b)(1)(C), and the BOP was failing to properly treat his hip condition, ear condition, visual impairment, elevated levels of Carcinoembryonic Antigen ("CEA"), and diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia. Sentence reduced to time served.

CR.RIS/REHABILITATION/YOUTH. The Eastern District of New York granted in part United States v. Jason Palacios, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96248 (E.D. N.Y. May 20, 2025). The Palacios brothers were charged with: (1) murder in aid of racketeering ("VICAR") in violation of 18 USC 1959(a)(1) and 18 USC 3551 and N.Y. Penal Law 125.25(3) and 120.00; (2) Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy in violation of 18 USC 1951 and 18 USC 3551; (3) Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 USC 1951 and 18 USC 3551; and (4) using and carrying a firearm in violation of 18 USC 924(c) and 18 USC 3551. The defendants were sentenced to life on the VICAR murder count, 240 months on the Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy counts, and a 60-month consecutive sentence on the firearms count. The Palacios brothers are now 49 years old and have served more than 28 years of their life sentences. They contended that a number of factors considered together amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons: (1) their young age at the time they committed the crimes for which they were convicted; (2) the length of the sentences they have already served; (3) their "genuine and extraordinary" rehabilitation, character, remorse, and acceptance of responsibility; and (4) the risk posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the harsh imprisonment conditions the pandemic has generated. Defendants took advantage of all educational, training, and employment opportunities afforded them. The court re-sentence defendants to 30 years for their VICAR convictions, and five years to be served consecutively for their section 924(c) convictions.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Third Circuit remanded for resentencing United States v. Nicholas Lucidonio, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12018 (3d Cir. May 16, 2025).

Lucidonio was involved in a payroll tax fraud scheme where he avoided employment taxes by issuing paychecks for “on-the-books” wages, requiring employees to sign back their paychecks, and then paying them in cash for both “on-the-books” and “off-the-books” wages. This led to the filing of false employer tax returns that underreported wages and underpaid employment taxes. The conspiracy spanned ten years and involved systemic underreporting of wages for 30 to 40 employees at any given time. Lucidonio pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the IRS under 18 USC 371. He challenged his sentence, specifically the application of a Sentencing Guideline that increased his offense level by two points. The enhancement applies when conduct is intended to encourage others to violate internal revenue laws or impede the IRS’s collection of revenue. Lucidonio argued the enhancement was misapplied because it required explicit direction to others to violate the IRS Code, which he claimed did not occur, and his employees were co-conspirators, not additional persons encouraged to violate the law. The Third Circuit disagreed with Lucidonio’s interpretation the enhancement required explicit direction. However, it found the Government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence Lucidonio encouraged anyone other than co-conspirators, as the employees were aware of and participated in the scheme. The court vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing without the enhancement.

APPEAL/PLEA AGREEMENT. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Edwin Brown, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12211 (4th Cir. May 20, 2025). Brown was indicted on four counts of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Government had evidence of Brown selling cocaine base and discovered a firearm upon his arrest. Brown faced up to 90 years in prison. His attorney initially advised him he was likely facing up to 120 months and presented two plea agreements limiting his prison exposure to ten years. Brown, skeptical of the advice, did not trust the attorney, and he withdrew as counsel. Brett Wentz then became Brown’s attorney and erroneously advised him his sentencing exposure would be the same whether he accepted a plea deal or not. Brown rejected the plea offers and later pled guilty to all counts receiving a 210-month sentence. The Eastern District of North Carolina found that Brown’s attorney performed deficiently but concluded that Brown failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by his attorney’s advice. The magistrate judge recommended denying Brown’s motion to vacate his sentence, stating that Brown presented no contemporaneous evidence to support his claim that he would have accepted the plea agreement if properly advised. The district court adopted this recommendation and denied Brown’s motion. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and found the district court erred in applying the standard from Lee v. United States which concerns accepted plea deals to Brown’s case involving a rejected plea deal. The Fourth Circuit held Brown demonstrated a reasonable probability he would have accepted the plea offer if properly advised given the significant disparity between the plea offer and the sentence he received. The court reversed the denial of relief, remanded the case, and required the Government to re-offer Brown the same plea agreements.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Ivan Echavarria, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12334 (11th Cir. May 21, 2025). Echavarria appealed his sentence of 240 months for distribution of fentanyl. On appeal he argues the district court clearly erred by imposing a two-level role enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(c). The Government agreed with Echavarria and concedes error. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the parties and vacated and remanded for resentencing.