SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER- 12-8-2025

SAMARITAN PROJECTS

4415 Gladstone Blvd.

Kansas City, MO 64123

Rusty 417 901 3000 – Eddie 417 818 1938

attorneytnorridnews@gmail.com

samaritanprojects@gmail.com

SAMARITANPROJECTS.COM – Website

– December 8, 2025

SUPREME COURT: Munson v. United States, No. 24-1063, argued Oct. 10, 2025. (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. (2) Whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.

Ellingburg v. United States, No. 24-482, argued Oct. 14, 2024. Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

APPEAL/AMENDMENT 821. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Carlos Adrian Plaza Estacio, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30542 (11th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025). Carlos Estacio appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The court held the district court abused its discretion in denying Estacio’s motion because it failed to consider the Commission’s policy statements and based its determination that 18 USC 3553(a) factors weigh against relief on clearly erroneous factual findings.

APPEAL/CR.RIS. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded United States v. Leonard Brown, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 28396 (11th Cir. Dec. 1, 2025). Brown appealed the district court’s denial of his letter request for appointment of counsel to represent him regarding the First Step Act. The district court construed Brown’s letter as a motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, and denied the construed motion, concluding he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. Brown filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court also denied. The Eleventh Circuit concluded the district court erred by (1) construing Brown’s letter as a motion for a sentence reduction and denying his so construed motion without first allowing Brown to make arguments in favor of a sentence reduction and (2) finding that Brown was “ineligible” for a sentence reduction. The court vacated the district court’s orders and remanded to allow Brown to brief his construed motion for a sentence reduction, allow the Government to respond, and then consider Brown’s construed motion for a sentence reduction.

APPEAL/CR.RIS. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded United States v. David Piaquadio, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30515 (3d Cir. Nov. 21, 2025). Piaquadio appealed the district court's denial of his motion for compassionate release. The district court based its denial on the mistaken belief that Piaquadio had only served five years of his sentence, rather than the actual 10 years he had served, and neglected to consider Piaquadio's post-sentencing mitigation evidence. The court vacated the district court's order and remanded to allow the district court to fully consider Piaquadio's 10 years served and post-sentencing mitigation evidence in its 18 USC 3553(a) analysis.

CR.RIS/MEDICAL/AGE/REHABILITATION/USSG 1B1.13(b)(5). The Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Lan Dang, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233175 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 26, 2025). Dang conspired to import and imported large quantities of ecstasy into the U.S. from Canada and conspired to launder monetary instruments. He was sentenced to 480 months. The Court found Dang had shown a "combination of circumstances" that are similar in gravity to those otherwise enumerated in USSG 1B1.13(b)(5), thereby establishing an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for a reduction in sentence. Dang is 70 years old. His mobility is limited, and he suffers from coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, and atrial fibrillation. Dang committed himself to substantial rehabilitative efforts over his 18-plus years in BOP custody, and such efforts weigh in favor of the Court's finding that an extraordinary and compelling reason for a reduction in sentence exists. His disciplinary infractions are limited, and he has finished paying his financial obligations, and taken over 30 educational classes and earned his GED/High School Diploma while incarcerated. Considering time served, the Court found his rehabilitative efforts commendable and extraordinary, especially when considered in combination with the aforementioned factors. The Motion was granted as defendant presenting an "extraordinary and compelling" reason warranting a reduction in sentence, but the Motion was deferred insofar as it seeks a determination as to an appropriate sentencing modification.

CR.RIS/DISPARITY/MEDICAL/USSG 1B1.13(b)(6). The district of Maryland granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Loxly Johnson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232177 (D. Md. Nov. 26, 2025). Johnson was found guilty of Conspiracy to Import One Kilogram or More of Heroin and 500 Grams or More of Cocaine and was sentenced to 240 months. Johnson's sentence was based on his prior drug trafficking conviction which is now reduced from 20 years of imprisonment to 15 years. Johnson's specific circumstances qualify as extraordinary and compelling under USSG 1B1.13(b)(6). He pointed to the disparity between his sentence and those of his co-defendants and asserted that his health conditions-namely, his older age, severe obesity, and high blood pressure are "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for release. Courts in the Fourth Circuit have found "that the sentencing disparity resulting from changes to 21 USC 851's penalty structure constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant relief." 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. Joseph Attaway, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229626 (E.D. Calif. Nov. 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) (count one); two counts of distribution of meth in violation of 21 USC 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii) (counts two and three); and one count of attempt to distribute oxycodone in violation of 21 USC 841(a)(1) and 846 (count four), and sentenced Attaway to 204 months. Attaway argued his sentence should be reduced based upon extraordinary and compelling reasons that: (1) his father is incapacitated and defendant is the only available caregiver; (2) defendant has performed well throughout his incarceration reflecting his post-offense rehabilitation, consideration of the 18 USC 3553(a) factors in his case support his compassionate release, and he has a suitable release plan. The court concluded a 6-month reduction of sentence to a term of 198 months.

CR.RIS/BOND. The Eastern District of Michigan granted bond in a CR.RIS case in United States v. Brown, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228943 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2025). This matter was before the Court on defendant's motion for bond pending the redetermination on remand of his motion for reduction of sentence. In December 2023, the Court re-sentenced defendant, along with three of his co-defendants, under the First Step Act of 2018. The Court entered an amended judgment reducing defendant's sentence to time served. Although the Government appealed the amended judgment, it did not seek to stay the decision, and the defendant was released from prison. By all accounts, he is leading a productive life. On Oct. 14, 2025 — nearly three years after the defendant's release — the Sixth Circuit vacated defendant's reduced sentence and remanded so that the Court could explain the application of the sentencing-package doctrine to the defendant's sentence. The defendant has moved for bond for the duration of these proceedings. The Government did not respond to defendant's motion and the time for doing so lapsed. The relevant factors favor continuing defendant's release on bond while further proceedings are conducted. United States v. Gordon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229779 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 21, 2025) (same),

APPEAL/18 USC 922(g)(3). The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Kevin Mitchell, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30668 (5th Cir. Nov. 21, 2025). Mitchell was previously convicted of being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm under 18 USC 922(g)(3) a felony offense. Based on his prior 922(g)(3) conviction, Mitchell was indicted in the Southern District of Mississippi for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 922(g)(1). Mitchell moved to dismiss the charge on several constitutional grounds, including an as-applied Second Amendment challenge in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. The district court denied his motion after which Mitchell entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal the Second Amendment issue. He was sentenced to 64-months. The Fifth Circuit held that under Bruen and its own precedent, the Second Amendment’s plain text covers Mitchell’s conduct and the only relevant predicate offense for an as-applied challenge is his prior 922(g)(3) conviction. The court found the Government failed to identify a historical tradition justifying permanent disarmament of individuals with a predicate offense based solely on habitual marijuana use, in the absence of evidence of active intoxication while possessing a firearm. The Fifth Circuit ruled 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to Mitchell’s predicate offense, reversed the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss and vacated the judgment of conviction and sentence.

APPEAL/EVIDENTIARY HEARING. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded United States v Donald Felton, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 30789 (7th Cir. Nov. 25, 2025). A jury found Donald Felton guilty of possessing with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. 21 USC 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). The district court sentenced Felton to 240 months. Felton did not appeal any aspect of his jury trial, but challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and in the alternative for a Franks hearing. The court reversed the denial of Felton’s motion to suppress and remanded for an evidentiary hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).