top of page

SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – 10-28- 2024

russellmarks417

The Tom Norrid Law Firm

SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC

4415 Gladstone Blvd.

Kansas City. MO 64123-1238

417-236-1179

 

The SAMARITAN-PROJECTS prepares post-conviction motions along with appeals under the direction of Attorney Tom Norrid and specializes in the preparation of compassionate release and 2255 motions. The Samaritan-Projects’ newsletter reports every winning published district court and court of appeals case for the week in review.  Contacts: Rusty – 417 901 3000 – Eddie 417 818 1938.

 

CR.RIS/MEDICAL. The Western District of Missouri, Kansas City, granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Mark Sorrentino, No. 10-cr-174, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS _______ (W.D. Mo. Oct. 21, 2024). On June 7, 2011, Sorrentino was named in a four-count superseding indictment. Count One charged conspiracy to commit arson in violation of 18 USC and 844(i). Count Two charged aiding and abetting to commit arson in violation of 18 USC 844(i) and 2. Count Three charged aiding and abetting to commit fraud in violation of 18 USC 1341 and 2. Count Four charged using a fire to commit arson and fraud in violation of 18 USC 1341 and 2. A jury found Sorrentino guilty on Counts One, Two, and Four. He was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment. Sorrentino has terminal cancer. On Sept. 13, 2024, the defendant was diagnosed with metastatic malignant melanoma. The court stated “defendant has identified an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release, namely he is suffering from metastatic melanoma and his condition has deteriorated very quickly. The court held “given the state of defendant's health, the 18 USC 3142(g) factors do not weigh against his release. Defendant's continued incarceration serves no valid penological purpose.” The court granted immediate release and reduced Sorrentino’s sentence to time served. THE PROJECT PREPARED THIS MOTION FOR THE TOM NORRID LAW FIRM.

 

CR.RIS/FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES, The District of Nevada granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Kenneth Smith, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193370 (D. Nev. Oct. 22, 2024). Smith moved for compassionate release pursuant to 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A), claiming that the critical and deteriorating condition of his child's sole caregiver constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. Because the court found that Smith's reason is extraordinary and compelling, it granted the motion for compassionate release. On June 12, 2023, Smith pled guilty to eight counts of illegal acquisition of a firearm in violation of 18 USC 922(a)(6), 924(a)(2); and one count of dealing in firearms without a license in violation of 922(a)(1)(A), 18 USC 923(a) and 18 USC 924(a)(1)(D). Smith was sentenced to sixty-three months of imprisonment. Smith sought compassionate release arguing that the court should reduce his sentence based on the health and safety of his minor child given the deteriorating condition of his child's sole caregiver. He further argued that his lack of criminal history, non-violent conduct, and rehabilitation efforts while incarcerated support a finding that a sentence reduction is appropriate. Smith sought compassionate release because he claimed that his child's caregiver-Heather-is incapacitated. Specifically, he stated that she "suffers from severe addiction and mental health issues" and that she has "a deteriorating mental state, marked by threats of self-harm and erratic behavior" which he states put his son, identified herein as Z in danger. He also stated that Heather "violat[ed] the custody agreement by moving the child out of the state." Smith does not have to prove that alternative caregivers are unavailable under USSG 1B1.13(b)(3)(A). The court did not take the motion or Smith's request lightly especially given the nature of his offenses. But because the court found that Z's caregiver is incapacitated, Smith has provided the court with an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction under 1B1.13(b)(3). Smith has no prior criminal history. He accepted responsibility for the offenses and has completed over sixty educational courses and is currently pursuing paralegal studies. The defendant’s sentence was reduced to 40-months imprisonment.

 

CR.RIS/YOUTH/STACKING/USSG 1B1.13(b)(6). The Western District of Oklahoma granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Ronnie Doddles, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189985 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 17, 2024). Doddles was convicted by a jury of one count of participating in a drug conspiracy; one count of possession with intent to distribute MDMA; three counts of drug user in possession of a firearm; one count of possession with intent to distribute crack, cocaine, and marijuana; and two counts of violating 18 USC 924(c) by possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Doddles was sentenced to a total of 480 months imprisonment which included the stacked terms for the two 924(c) violations and a 120-month term of imprisonment for the remaining counts. Doddles has met his burden of showing that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentenced reduction. When Doddles was sentenced the law required the sentencing court to impose a mandatory consecutive sentence of 300 months (25 years) for his second 924(c) conviction even though it arose from conduct charged in a single prosecution. However, later (non-retroactive) changes in the law "amended 924(c) so that the twenty-five-year mandatory minimum sentence for a second or subsequent conviction of 924(c) applies only if the defendant's first 924(c) conviction is final at the time of the second or subsequent 924(c) conviction." If Doddles were sentenced today, the sentencing court would not be required to impose a consecutive 25-year minimum sentence for the second 924(c) conviction. Doddles was sentenced to an extremely long sentence based on the sentence stacking in 924(c), he would likely receive a shorter sentence if he were sentenced today, his co-defendants received significantly shorter sentences for substantially similar conduct, and his youth at the time of the offense — constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce Doddles' sentence. Doddles has previously had some disciplinary issues while incarcerated but he has not had any infractions over the last two years and has made commendable progress toward completing his GED. The defendant’s sentence was reduced to time served.

 

AMENDMENT 821. The Middle District of Florida granted an 821 motion in United States v. Danielle Hallmon, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193344 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2024). 

The defendant was sentenced to a 121-month sentence for drug related offenses. The defendant was eligible for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 USC 3582(c)(2), USSG 1B1.10, and Part A of Amendment 821. The defendant committed the instant offense while he was under a criminal justice sentence. The defendant’s sentence was reduced to 108-months.

 

APPEAL/SENTENCING VARIANCE. The Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing United States v. Thomas Crosby, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26768 (10th Cir. Oct. 23, 2024). Federal agents executed a search warrant on the home of an Air Force serviceman, Thomas Crosby, in 2018 wherein the agents seized electronic devices that contained over 4,000 files of child pornography. Crosby admitted to possessing the material and was administratively separated from the Air Force. In 2020, he was indicted in New Mexico for possession of child pornography and arrested in Pennsylvania where he continued to download such material. A subsequent search found additional illicit content. Crosby was held in custody for five days before being released on pretrial conditions. He was later indicted in Pennsylvania and the cases were consolidated in New Mexico. The District Court of New Mexico accepted Crosby's guilty plea and calculated a Guidelines range of 78–97 months based on various offense enhancements. The Government requested a 78-month sentence while Crosby argued for a non-custodial sentence citing his autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis and low risk of recidivism. The district court ultimately sentenced Crosby to five days' time served, emphasizing his ASD, potential for rehabilitation and his low recidivism risk while noting his compliance with pretrial conditions and employment. The Tenth Circuit focusing on the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. The court found that the district court failed to adequately consider several 18 USC 3553(a) factors, including retribution, general deterrence, avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the established sentencing range. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court's explanation was insufficient to justify the significant downward variance from the Guidelines range. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.

 

APPEAL/ACCA/ERLINGER. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded United States v. Isaac D. Harvin, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26855 (11th Cir. Oct. 24, 2024). Harvin appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon. Harvin moved for summary reversal in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1840 (2024), arguing that the district court reversibly erred in applying a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), 18 USC 924(e)(1), because a jury did not determine whether the predicate offenses for the enhancement occurred on different occasions. The Government did not oppose Harvin’s motion. In Erlinger, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require that any fact used to increase the range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed, including whether a defendant’s past offenses were committed on separate occasions for ACCA purposes, must be either freely admitted by the defendant in a guilty plea or resolved by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 144 S. Ct. at 1851–52. The Supreme Court expressly stated that “[j]udges may not assume the jury’s factfinding function for themselves, let alone purport to perform it using a mere preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.” Id. at 1851. The Court recognized that, to determine what legal elements attached to a defendant’s prior offenses the district court may need to “consult Shepard documents,” such as “judicial records, plea agreements, and colloquies between a judge and the defendant,” to determine the jurisdiction and the date of those prior offenses. Id. at 1854–55.

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...

Comentários


  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
bottom of page