SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – 09-25-2025

SAMARITAN PROJECTS

4415 Gladstone Blvd.

Kansas City, MO. 64123

Rusty 417 901 3000

samaritanprojects@gmail.com

SUPREME COURT: In Rutherford v. United States, 145 S. Ct. 2776, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2209, 2025 WL 1603603 (U.S. June 6, 2025), and Carter v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2775, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2266, 2025 WL 1603599 (U.S. June 6, 2025), the Court granted certiorari to consider whether certain changes in the law can constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons, U.S.S.G. 1B1.13(b)(6). In Fernandez v. United States, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2005, 2025 WL 1496486 (U.S. May 27, 2025), the Court granted certiorari to consider 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.

CR.RIS/FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES. The Middle District of Alabama granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Jerry Higdon, No. 03-cr-43 (ECF 231) (M.D. Ala. Sept. 17, 2025). A jury convicted Higdon on four counts: three counts of distribution of pure methamphetamine in violation of 18 USC 2 and 21 USC 841, and one count of a drive-by shooting in violation of 18 USC 36(b)(1). Higdon was sentenced to 480 months on each of the drug offenses and 300 months on the drive-by shooting offense, all to be served consecutively to each other for a total of 1,740 months (145 years) imprisonment. He moved for reduction of sentence to time served and argued he was eligible for a reduction because of a change in the law that calls into question his unusually long sentence or because he is the sole caretaker for his elderly mother who suffers from serious medical conditions. The Guidelines list several circumstances that may be an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce a sentence—relevant here, the family circumstances of the defendant, specifically the “incapacitation of the defendant’s parent when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for the parent.” USSG 1B1.13(b)(3)(C). the parties agreed Higdon’s elderly, frail, and nearly blind mother’s need for Higdon’s care constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason to warrant a reduction in sentence to time served. The Government conceded Higdon “has been an exemplary inmate,” he has a “low” reoffending rate, and is 62 years old and “likely passed the age where he would be considered a risk to the community.” Sentence reduced to time served.

CR.RIS/FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES. The Southern District of New York granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Mircea Constantinescu, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181560 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 16, 2025). Defendant was found guilty of (1) conspiracy to commit access device fraud in violation of 18 USC 1029(b)(2) and 18 USC 1029(c)(1)(A)(ii); (2) conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud in violation of 18 USC 1349; (3) aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 USC 1028A(a)(1) and (b); and (4) conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 USC 1956(h). Constantinescu has served approximately 40-months of his 92-month sentence. Defendant's wife and codefendant died in a boating accident on July 3 of this year. She was the sole caregiver for their two daughters, aged 15 and 19. The daughters are currently living without adult supervision in Kew Garden Hills, Queens, in the apartment in which they resided with their mother. Although a GoFundMe fundraiser has provided them some financial assistance, the girls are behind on rent and depend on the GoFundMe to pay their living expenses, including rent. Neither of the girls' living grandparents are able to care for them because the grandparents live in Romania, are financially unable to relocate to the United States, and suffer health problems. Constantinescu asserts there are no other available caretakers for his two daughters. Despite the seriousness of his crimes the Court concluded a reduction in sentence was appropriate in light of the extraordinary and compelling circumstances, specifically the need for Constantinescu to care for his minor daughter and to provide her with a place to live. Constantinescu's motion for compassionate release was granted. Sentence reduced to time served.

CR.RIS/DISPARITY/REHABILITATION/JAIL CREDIT/1B1.13(b)(5). The Eastern District of Michigan granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Darnell Skinner, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179626 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 5, 2025). Skinner pled guilty to one count of felon in possession of a firearm under 18 USC 922(g)(1) and was sentenced to 37-months, to be served concurrently with his undischarged state prison sentence with the Michigan Department of Corrections. The BOP refused to give Skinner credit for the 14-months he had served prior to the Court issuing its sentence. Skinner's request for relief falls under the "other reasons" catch-all provision, USSG 1B1.13(b)(5). The BOP did not recommended a sentence reduction. The Sixth Circuit established that district courts have "full discretion to define 'extraordinary and compelling' without consulting the policy statement in Section 1B1.13. The Sixth Circuit has affirmed circumstances outside of the enumerated 1B1.13 factors, such as changes to non-retroactive sentencing guidelines and length of sentences. The Court found extraordinary and compelling reasons warranted a sentence reduction in this case to ensure the original intention of the Court and the expectations of the parties are fulfilled. Sentence reduced to time served.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE/FORFEITURE/RESTITUTION. The Second Circuit reversed and remanded United States v. Mathew James, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22261 (2d Cir. Aug. 29, 2025). James is a former nurse and owner of a medical billing business who was convicted for health care fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft. The charges arose from a scheme in which James and his employees falsified insurance claims by “upcoding” and “unbundling” medical procedures, directed patients to emergency rooms for pre-planned surgeries, and impersonated patients in communications with insurance companies. The jury convicted James on most counts but acquitted him of money laundering conspiracy. Jurors were inadvertently given access to transcripts of two recorded calls not admitted into evidence, but the district court declined to conduct an inquiry into the exposure, instead instructing the jury to disregard any material not in evidence. The court imposed a 144-month prison term, a forfeiture order of over $63 million, and restitution of nearly $337 million. The court applied sentencing enhancements for James’s leadership role and abuse of trust and increased the sentence after considering James’s potential eligibility for earned time credits and rehabilitation programs. The Second Circuit affirmed James’s conviction finding any jury exposure to extra-record material harmless. The court vacated the sentence including the forfeiture and restitution orders holding the district court erred by enhancing the sentence based on potential earned time credits and rehabilitation program eligibility, misapplied sentencing enhancements without adequate findings, and failed to properly calculate forfeiture and restitution by including legitimate business revenue. The case was remanded for resentencing.

APPEAL/INDIAN STATUS. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded United States v. Lloyd Hatley, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22980 (10th Cir. Sept. 5, 2025). The case concerns a fatal car accident that occurred on a state highway within the Chickasaw Nation Reservation in Oklahoma. Hatley, while driving slightly above the speed limit, glanced at a vehicle parked on the shoulder. When he looked back, he saw another car, driven by Gay Ott and carrying Mary Nappa, had swerved into his lane and was braking. Hatley was unable to stop in time and collided with the car resulting in Nappa’s death. Data from the vehicles indicated the Pontiac attempted an illegal left turn and Hatley was accelerating before braking sharply to avoid the collision. The Eastern District of Oklahoma indicted Hatley on four counts related to the accident including involuntary manslaughter in Indian country. The government sought to prove Hatley’s Indian status—an essential element for federal jurisdiction—using a tribal verification letter and testimony from Derrick Vann, a Cherokee Nation records custodian. Hatley objected to the admissibility of this evidence arguing lack of foundation and hearsay. The district court admitted the evidence and the jury convicted Hatley of involuntary manslaughter and acquitting him on other counts. Hatley was sentenced to 48-months. The Tenth Circuit held the government was required to prove Hatley’s Indian status at the time of the offense. The court found the district court abused its discretion by admitting the tribal verification letter and Vann’s testimony as neither was properly authenticated nor admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Because no other competent evidence established Hatley’s Indian status at the relevant time, the error was not harmless. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded and vacated the conviction.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Keast, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23380 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2025). The defendant pled guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of a firearm. At the time of sentencing he had a prior Oregon felony conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, specifically under the “possession” subsection of the Oregon statute, with an added firearm enhancement. The key issue at sentencing was whether this prior conviction qualified as a “crime of violence” under the Guidelines. The District of Oregon determined the prior Oregon conviction did qualify as a crime of violence under USSG 4B1.2(a)(1). This finding increased defendant’s base offense level and resulted in a higher recommended sentencing range. The district court imposed a sentence of 46-months which was below the enhanced guideline range but above what it would have been without the crime-of-violence enhancement. The defendant appealed arguing the district court’s analysis was incorrect. The Ninth Circuit held the Oregon statutes at issue does not require, as an element, the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another. The court found neither the underlying offense nor the firearm enhancement statute required such an element, and the government’s arguments to the contrary were not supported by the statutory text or Oregon case law. The Ninth Circuit concluded the prior conviction was not a crime of violence under the Guidelines. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the crime-of-violence enhancement.