SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – September 29, 2025

SAMARITAN PROJECTS

4415 Gladstone Blvd.

Kansas City, MO. 64123

Rusty 417 901 3000

samaritanprojects@gmail.com

SAMARITANPROJECTS.COM – Website

APPEAL/CR.RIS. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Demario Covington, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24473 (4th Cir. Sept. 22, 2025). Covington appealed the district court's order denying his second motion for compassionate release. Covington contended that a purported "gross disparity between his sentence and the sentence he would receive if sentenced today"; "family circumstances"; the "increase[d] . . . severity of his sentence" in light of the COVID-19 pandemic; and "his outstanding accomplishments while incarcerated and his robust reentry plan" constituted extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting his release. The district court addressed several of Covington's arguments related to his allegedly disparate sentence and denied the motion. Here, the district court's text order relied heavily on its prior order denying Covington's first compassionate release motion. But Covington's second motion relied on different extraordinary and compelling circumstances, several of which the district court failed to address. The court's order did not address its weighing of the 3553(a) factors beyond observing that the sentencing judge found the factors did not warrant a sentence reduction in August 2021. The court can only speculate as to whether the district court adequately and reasonably considered Covington's arguments and properly applied the governing law when denying his second motion for compassionate release. The court expressed no views as to the merits of

Covington's motion, but concluded they were unable to meaningfully review the court's order. The court vacated the denial and remanded.

CR.RIS/REHABILITATION/SEXUAL ABUSE. The District of Montana granted in part a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Desire Lambert, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188166 (D. Mont. Sept. 23, 2025). Lambert pled guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of 18 USC 1153(a) and 113(a)(3), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence in violation of 18 USC 924(c)(1)(A). The Court sentenced Lambert to 121 months. Lambert argued extraordinary and compelling reasons exist for release because defendant is a survivor of sexual abuse. Lambert, additionally, argued that release was warranted in this case because defendant requires special health care services as a transgender person that will likely go unaddressed in custody. Lambert alleged the following incident of sexual misconduct. Sometime during Lambert's confinement at FCI Dublin, prison guard Darrell Smith, known by prisoners as "Dirty Dick" Smith, entered Lambert's cell. Smith stated to Lambert, "you're not fooling me with this boy persona you have going. I know what you really look like outside of here." He then reached into Lambert's pants, rubbed Lambert's vagina, and fondled Lambert's breasts. Smith told Lambert: "let's see if it still gets wet for us men." Lambert filed a motion for compassionate release citing family circumstances, rehabilitative efforts, and her own medical needs along with the alleged abuse experienced at FCI Dublin. The nature and characteristics of Lambert's offense weigh heavily against a complete reduction in sentence. Lambert committed a violent drug offense. Lambert shot a person in the chest over an unsettled drug debt. The person could have lost his life. Lambert perpetrated the offense while on supervision for two other convictions. Based on these facts, a complete reduction in sentence failed to comport with the sentencing factors. Lambert failed to participate in recommended programming and treatment, and she has been disciplined for several violations at FCI Waseca, including methamphetamine use. The Court reduced Lambert's sentence to a period of 113 months.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Coffer, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 23989 (8th Cir. Sept. 17, 2025). In the early morning hours police responded to a 911 call from a woman who reported that her boyfriend, Shaquan Coffer, had damaged her car and was armed. Officers located the vehicle, separated the two individuals, and learned from the woman that Coffer was intoxicated and carrying a firearm. While speaking with an officer, Coffer attempted to conceal something in his waistband and then fled on foot. During the chase, officers saw him reach into his pants and heard a metallic sound; they recovered a loaded handgun, painted white, from the ground 11 seconds later. Coffer was apprehended shortly after. Following Coffer’s guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, the Northern District of Iowa considered whether to apply a two-level sentencing enhancement for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury during flight from law enforcement under USSG 3C1.2. The PSR did not recommend the enhancement, but the government objected. At sentencing, the district court found that, although accidental discharge was unlikely due to the firearm’s safety features, discarding a loaded gun in public created a substantial risk to others, particularly because of the gun’s appearance. The court applied the enhancement, increasing Coffer’s guideline range, and imposed a 71-month sentence. The Eighth Circuit held the district court erred in applying the enhancement as the government failed to show that Coffer’s conduct created more than a speculative risk of harm; there was no evidence of bystanders or actual endangerment beyond the mere act of discarding the firearm. The appellate court vacated Coffer’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, finding the error in guideline calculation was not harmless.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Xavier Josey, U.S. App. LEXIS 24290 (3d Cir. Sept. 2025). The defendant was previously convicted in North Carolina of indecent liberties with a child, which required him to register as a sex offender under federal law. He complied with federal registration requirements after moving to New York in 2017 and again after moving within New York in 2018. However, he failed to comply with New York’s separate annual address verification requirement after 2018. In 2023, after moving to Pennsylvania he failed to update his federal sex offender registration as required by SORNA. He was indicted and pled guilty to knowingly failing to update his federal registration after interstate travel in violation of 18 USC 2250(a). The Middle District of Pennsylvania, relying on the PSR, calculated the defendant’s criminal history score by including three prior sentences from 2010 and 2011. The Probation Office and the District Court reasoned that the “commencement of the instant offense” for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines’ criminal history look-back period included not only the conduct underlying the federal conviction but also “relevant conduct,” specifically the earlier New York state registration violations. This interpretation resulted in a higher criminal history category and a longer advisory sentencing range. The Third Circuit held the phrase “commencement of the instant offense” in USSG 4A1.2(e) unambiguously refers only to the start of the conduct constituting the offense of conviction, not to other “relevant conduct.” Therefore, the District Court erred by including the earlier state-law violations in its calculation. The Third Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing using the correct criminal history category.

APPEAL/RESTITUTION/FORFEITURE. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Seth Fishman, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24432 (2d Cir. Sept. 22, 2025). A licensed veterinarian developed and manufactured undetectable performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) for use in professional horse racing, selling them to trainers who administered them to horses to gain a competitive edge. His salesperson assisted in these activities, operating a company that distributed the drugs without prescriptions or FDA approval. The drugs were misbranded or adulterated and the operation involved deceptive practices such as misleading labeling and falsified customs forms. The PEDs were credited by trainers for their horses’ successes, and evidence showed the drugs could be harmful if misused. The Southern District of New York presided over two separate trials, resulting in convictions for both the veterinarian and his salesperson for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute misbranded or adulterated drugs with intent to defraud or mislead, in violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The district court denied motions to dismiss the indictment, admitted evidence from a prior state investigation, and imposed sentences including imprisonment, restitution, and forfeiture. The court calculated loss for sentencing based on the veterinarian’s gains and ordered restitution to racetracks based on winnings by a coconspirator’s doped horses. The Second Circuit held the statute’s “intent to defraud or mislead” element is not limited to particular categories of victims; it is sufficient if the intent relates to the underlying violation. The court found no error in the admission of evidence from the 2011 investigation or in the use of gain as a proxy for loss in sentencing. However, it vacated the restitution order to racetracks, finding no evidence they suffered pecuniary loss, and vacated the forfeiture order, holding that the relevant statute is not a civil forfeiture statute subject to criminal forfeiture procedures. The convictions and sentences were otherwise affirmed.

APPEAL/18 USC 922(q)(3)(A). The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded United States v. Gabriel Metcalf, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24568 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2025). A resident of Billings, Montana, who lived across the street from a public elementary school, began carrying a shotgun outside his home, including on the sidewalk, during the summer of 2023. He did so to protect himself and his mother from a former neighbor who had repeatedly violated a protection order. Local police received several complaints about his conduct but did not charge him with any crime and told him he was complying with state law. After the resident contacted the FBI to complain about police harassment, federal authorities indicted him for possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, 18 USC 922(q)(2)(A). The District of Montana denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. The defendant argued he was exempt from the federal prohibition because, under Montana law, he was considered licensed to possess a firearm in a school zone. The district court found that Montana’s licensing scheme did not meet the federal requirements for the statutory exception, and rejected the defendant’s Second Amendment challenge. The defendant then pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order, directing that the indictment be dismissed. The Ninth Circuit held the statutory exception for state-licensed individuals in the Gun-Free School Zones Act was ambiguous as applied to Montana’s licensing scheme. Given this ambiguity, and considering the rule of lenity, constitutional avoidance, and the presumption in favor of scienter as articulated in Rehaif v. United States, the court concluded the defendant lacked fair notice his conduct was criminal. The court did not address the Second Amendment argument.