SAMARITAN PROJECTS NEWSLETTER

10.03.26

CR/RIS Medical// United States v. Cheema, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225890 (S.D.NY. October 1, 2026)

WHO: Liaquat Cheema is a 66-year-old construction company president who led a multi-year fraud scheme against New York City, overbilling on public contracts at homeless shelters to the tune of over $3 million. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, was sentenced to 48 months in federal prison, and was the only co-defendant to receive any prison time — largely because of his leadership role in the conspiracy.

WHAT HAPPENED: About seven months into his sentence, Cheema suffered a catastrophic stroke that left him paralyzed on his left side, unable to speak, unable to follow basic motor commands, dependent on a surgically inserted feeding tube, and requiring total nursing-home-level care with little to no prognosis for meaningful recovery. His counsel filed for compassionate release, the Government consented, and Judge Schofield granted the motion on October 1, 2026 — reducing his sentence to time served and ordering his release into family care as soon as possible.

WHY IT MATTERS: The case is a concrete example of the First Step Act functioning as intended — providing a legal off-ramp when continued incarceration serves no realistic penological purpose — while also exposing persistent tensions in the system, including the BOP's limited capacity to provide humane catastrophic care, the waivability of exhaustion requirements when the government cooperates, and the outsized role that pre-sentencing financial restitution and government consent play in determining who actually gets relief.

2255.United States v. Brent, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225428 (N.D.Il October 1, 2026)

WHO: Tremaine Brent is a federal defendant who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances. His attorney, Kent R. Carlson, gave him critically flawed advice about what rights he was preserving by signing a Plea Declaration — specifically telling Brent he could still challenge the drug quantities and the start date of his involvement, which his counsel believed would help him avoid the statutory 10-year mandatory minimum sentence.

WHAT HAPPENED: Brent filed a motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because of his attorney's ineffective assistance. Judge Elaine E. Bucklo agreed, finding that the advice was legally wrong — the charge Brent pleaded guilty to carried the 10-year mandatory minimum regardless of any factual challenges he sought to preserve. Applying the Strickland v. Washington standard, the court found that counsel's error satisfied both the deficient performance and prejudice prongs, granted the motion to vacate the guilty plea, ordered Brent released on bond, and directed the Government to decide by November 30, 2026 whether it intends to retry him or proceed differently.

WHY IT MATTERS: This case is a sharp reminder that a guilty plea is only constitutionally valid if the defendant fully understands its consequences — and that bad advice from counsel about mandatory minimums can unravel an entire conviction. It reinforces Strickland's practical reach into the plea bargaining context, which the Supreme Court recognized in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, and highlights how a single misrepresentation about a mandatory minimum can be enough to vacate a plea, force the government back to square one, and result in a defendant's release pending retrial.

2255. United States v. Robinson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225757

(E.D.California,September 30, 2026 )

WHO: Lawrence Robinson is a federal defendant serving a 60-month term of supervised release following his incarceration. Critically, he had already served 66 months beyond the statutory maximum for his offense while imprisoned — meaning the system had already taken more from him than the law authorized before he even reached the supervised release phase of his sentence.

WHAT HAPPENED: Robinson filed a second motion for early termination of supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) after a first motion was denied in May 2025. The Government opposed it, arguing he was simply repeating himself without addressing the prior denial. Judge Troy L. Nunley disagreed, found that Robinson had completed 46 of 60 months of supervision with stable employment, stable housing, and full compliance, and — most significantly — gave "great weight" to the fact that Robinson had already served 66 excess months in prison beyond what the law permitted. The motion was granted and supervised release was terminated early.

WHY IT MATTERS: This case makes an important equitable point that courts rarely state so directly: when the government has already extracted more punishment than the law allows through over-incarceration, that fact carries real weight against continuing to impose additional supervision burdens on a defendant who has demonstrated full rehabilitation. It also reinforces that early termination of supervised release under § 3583(e) is not just a reward for good behavior — it is a tool for ensuring that the total punishment imposed remains proportionate, fair, and no greater than necessary under § 3553(a).

SP@NorridLaw.com Corrlinks

SamaritanProjects.com Website

Rusty 417 236 1179

Steve 816 562 4981

The Samaritan Project

"When No One Else Will Help, We Will"