SAMARITAN PROJECTS NEWSLETTER- 09-10-2025

4415 Gladstone Blvd.

Kansas City, MO 64123

attorneytnorridnews@gmail.com

samaritanprojects@gmail.com

Rusty – 417 901 3000 – Eddie 417 818 1938

.

CR.RIS/FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES/REHABILITATION. The Eastern District of Texas granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Jack Shaw, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168551 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2025). Shaw pled guilty to Conspiracy to Possess with the Intent to Distribute and Distribution of 500 Grams or More of Methamphetamine, 5 Kilograms or More of Cocaine, and 1 Kilogram or More of Heroin, a violation of 21 USC 841(b)(1)(A) and was sentenced to 144 months. Defendant's request for compassionate release falls under USSG 1B1.13(b)(3) and (5). Shaw makes two arguments in support of his motion for compassionate release: (1) the incapacitation of his sister is "extraordinary and compelling" because he is the only available caregiver, which satisfies the family circumstances standards in 1B1.13(b)(3), and (2) errors in calculating defendant's sentence caused him hardships and constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason under 1B1.13(b)(5). Ultimately, the Court found defendant's family circumstances are an "extraordinary and compelling" reason warranting a sentence reduction, especially when considering defendant's rehabilitation and the other facts surrounding defendant's incarceration. Defendant's sister is 54, has Down Syndrome and congenital heart defects, suffers from curvature of the spine, is only able to move with a walker, cannot speak, and is functionally blind. The Court found Tracy meets the Zermeno definition of incapacitation. Shaw took steps to improve himself. He completed cognitive behavior therapy programming, as well as two vocational work programs: an HVAC program and a Department of Labor quality-control technician program. Sentence reduced to time served.

APPEAL/924(j)/RESENTENCE. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Perrin, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 21733 (3d Cir. Aug. 25, 2025). Two individuals operated a large-scale heroin trafficking operation, transporting significant quantities of heroin from New Jersey to Pennsylvania. Law enforcement, using information from an informant, initiated an investigation that included wiretaps on the suspects phones. The wiretap application was signed by the First Deputy Attorney General acting on the authority of the Pennsylvania Attorney General who was out of the country at the time. The investigation led to the arrest of both men, the seizure of heroin, cash, and firearms, and the discovery of their involvement in witness tampering, including the murder and attempted murder of two women connected to the case. The Western District of Pennsylvania denied the defendants motion to suppress the wiretap evidence finding the First Deputy Attorney General was properly authorized under state law to submit the application. After a jury trial both defendants were convicted of drug and firearm offenses, with one also convicted of witness tampering resulting in death and attempted murder. The court sentenced one defendant to 380 months in prison and the other to life imprisonment plus additional consecutive terms. Both appealed, raising issues regarding the wiretap’s legality, alleged constructive amendment of the indictment, jury instructions, sufficiency of the evidence, and sentencing errors. The Third Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences for one defendant in full. For the other, the court affirmed all convictions and sentences except for the consecutive 25-year sentence imposed for using a firearm to commit murder under 18 USC 924(j). The court held the Supreme Court’s decision in Lora v. United States, a consecutive sentence is not mandatory under 924(j), and thus vacated and remanded for resentencing on that count. All other claims for relief were rejected.

APPEAL/2254. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded Gladys Perez v. Reubart, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22153 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2025). Perez was convicted in Nevada state court of first-degree murder, child neglect, and child abuse, and sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. After her conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Nevada, Perez filed a state post-conviction habeas petition, which tolled the federal one-year limitations period under the AEDPA. Her state petition was denied, and Perez repeatedly instructed her court-appointed attorney, Bret Whipple, to file an appeal. Whipple failed to communicate with Perez or file the appeal, and did not provide her with the necessary case documents. After months of unsuccessful attempts to contact Whipple, Perez began preparing a federal habeas petition on her own, facing additional obstacles such as limited access to the prison law library, incomplete case files, and delays in obtaining a required financial certificate from prison officials. The District of Nevada dismissed Perez’s federal habeas petition as untimely finding she had not demonstrated the extraordinary circumstances or reasonable diligence required for equitable tolling under AEDPA. The district court concluded Perez’s efforts to contact her attorney and prepare her petition were insufficient to excuse her late filing. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held Perez’s abandonment by her post-conviction counsel constituted an extraordinary circumstance that prevented her timely filing, and she acted with reasonable diligence both before and after the abandonment. The court also found that delays by prison officials in processing her financial certificate further contributed to her late filing. The panel concluded that Perez qualified for equitable tolling and remanded for consideration of the merits of her habeas petition.

APPEAL/SEARCH WARRANT. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded United States v. Blasdel, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22467 (10th Cir. Sept. 2, 2025). Police officers in Oklahoma conducted a warrantless search of a storage unit rented by an individual whose email and payment information were on the rental agreement, though the agreement was signed by another person. Employees of the storage facility initially entered the unit after finding its door ajar, observing what appeared to be drugs and firearms, and then notified police. Upon arrival, officers looked into the unit, with one officer peeking his head inside to observe suspected contraband, and another officer later entering the unit and opening a drawer before a warrant was obtained. The officers then used their observations to obtain a search warrant for the storage unit, which led to the discovery of drugs and firearms. Based on this evidence, they secured a second warrant to search the renter’s home, where additional contraband was found. The District of Oklahoma denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence from both searches, finding no Fourth Amendment violation in the officers’ actions. The defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to drug and firearm charges, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling, and was sentenced to 188 months in prison. The Tenth Circuit held that the officers’ warrantless entry and search of the storage unit violated the Fourth Amendment. The court determined after excising the unconstitutionally obtained information from the search warrant affidavit the remaining content failed to establish probable cause. The court also found that the good faith exception did not apply because the affidavit was so facially deficient that officers could not reasonably rely on it. Consequently, the evidence from both the storage unit and the home was ordered suppressed. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the suppression motion, vacated the conviction and sentence, and remanded for further proceedings.

APPEAL/JURY INSTRUCTIONS. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded United States v. Victor Kearney, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22465 (10th Cir. Sept. 2, 2025). Kearney was indicted for filing a false tax return for 2011 and for conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding the Internal Revenue Service. The government alleged that Kearney, with the assistance of his tax attorney, Robert Fiser, failed to report taxable trust income on his tax returns from 2007 to 2011. Fiser, who was both an attorney and a certified public accountant, prepared Kearney’s returns during those years, reporting negative income despite Kearney’s receipt of trust income. At trial, Kearney argued that he relied in good faith on Fiser’s advice and was unaware of his personal tax obligations. The defense also challenged Fiser’s credibility, highlighting his ethical violations and criminal history. The District of New Mexico conducted the trial. The jury convicted Kearney on both counts: filing a false tax return and conspiracy to defraud the United States. The district court sentenced him to 27 months in prison for each count, to run concurrently, and denied his motion for a new trial. Kearney appealed, challenging only his conspiracy conviction. He argued the district court erred by misinstructing the jury on the elements of conspiracy to defraud and by failing to include the conspiracy charge in the advice-of-counsel instruction. The Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and found two plain errors. First, the jury instruction for conspiracy did not require the government to prove that Kearney used deceitful or dishonest means, an essential element of conspiracy to defraud under 18 USC 371. Second, the advice-of-counsel instruction was limited to the false return charge and did not inform the jury this defense applied to the conspiracy charge as well. The court held these errors prejudiced Kearney’s defense, vacated his conspiracy conviction, and remanded for further proceedings.