SAMARITAN PROJECTS NEWSLETTER

10.14.26

U.S. S.Ct. Grants Certiorari in: Berry v. United States, No. 25-7026

The petitioner is Corey Duran Berry, a federal prisoner from Florida. He pleaded guilty to charges from two South Florida carjackings in which he threatened victims with a gun, and he was sentenced in 2014 to 218 months. The respondent is the United States, represented by the Justice Department. The Supreme Court agreed on October 13, 2026, to hear the case (Berry v. United States, No. 25-7026). Defense lawyers' groups (the NACDL) and six former federal judges filed briefs supporting Berry.

Berry's sentence included an extra seven years for using a firearm in a "crime of violence." After the Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Davis (2019) and United States v. Taylor (2022), he argued that his attempted carjacking no longer qualifies as a violent crime, so the add-on is invalid. He does not dispute the underlying conduct. The district court rejected his challenge because his records did not show that his firearm conviction rested solely on the part of the law struck down in Davis. The Eleventh Circuit requires prisoners to show this is more likely than not. He then asked the Eleventh Circuit for a certificate of appealability, which a federal prisoner generally needs in order to appeal the denial of a post-conviction challenge. It refused because its own precedent had already rejected his argument. The question before the Supreme Court is narrow. It is whether a prisoner can get that certificate when circuits disagree on the law, even though his own circuit has already ruled against the argument.

Circuit split: The Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits take a restrictive approach, so disagreement elsewhere is not enough. The Ninth and Tenth Circuits are more permissive and treat the disagreement as proof that the issue is debatable. Berry's lawyers say the Third Circuit's decisions support that view.

Supporters' arguments: The NACDL says an appeal opens the door to en banc review and gives the Supreme Court a better chance to resolve the conflict. The former judges say the test is whether the claim is substantial, not whether the current panel is free to rule for the prisoner.

Government's position: The Justice Department urged the Court not to take the case. It says the certificate issue would not change the outcome and that Berry faces other obstacles, such as timeliness and procedural default. It also stresses the finality of criminal judgments.

Today, whether a prisoner can get appellate review can depend on where he was prosecuted. A Florida prisoner may be shut out while a California prisoner with the same argument can appeal. The ruling could set a national standard for a key gateway to post-conviction review. It would affect federal prisoners, state prisoners seeking federal habeas relief, defense lawyers and courts, and not just firearms cases. A win for Berry would not reopen convictions or guarantee relief. It would give prisoners a better chance at appellate review, en banc rehearing and eventual Supreme Court review. A win for the government would keep restrictive rules like the Eleventh Circuit's in place. The case has only been accepted, and no ruling has been issued yet.

2255; Sinu v. Mullin, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232400 (D.N.M. October 9, 2026 )

The petitioner is an Ethiopian citizen, identified in the case as Sinu. He came to the United States on February 20, 2025, and has been in immigration detention ever since. The respondents are the federal government officials who hold him, including the detention facility warden and immigration authorities. U.S. District Judge Sarah M. Davenport of the District of New Mexico decided the case. Two other judges had already denied his earlier habeas petitions.

Sinu was first put in expedited removal proceedings and then in full § 240 removal proceedings. An immigration judge ordered him removed on December 8, 2025. His appeal is still pending, and he has never had an individualized bond hearing. He filed two earlier habeas petitions through prior counsel. Both were denied because they did not argue that his detention was prolonged. In this third petition, the court made four main rulings:

The petition is not barred as successive. The court declined to dismiss it as an abuse of the writ, partly because of the due process stakes and because the second denial was without prejudice.

Governing statute: He is an arriving alien, so 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) governs his detention, not § 1226. That means no statutory bond hearing.

Procedural due process: This does not entitle him to a bond hearing. The court sided with courts that say arriving aliens get only the procedures Congress provided.

Substantive due process: After more than 19 months, his detention is punitive and excessive. The government gave no legitimate reason for it, and an appeal that could take years is not enough. The court granted the writ and ordered his release within 48 hours, with conditions such as electronic monitoring or check-ins. The government must report on compliance and may not re-detain him without evidence that he committed a crime or absconded, or without a final removal order and concrete travel plans.

The Tenth Circuit has not decided whether due process limits prolonged detention of arriving aliens under § 1225(b), and courts across the country disagree. This ruling takes a middle path. It rejects a right to a bond hearing but holds that detention can become unconstitutionally punitive on its own. Judges in the district can use that reasoning to order release when detention drags on without a real government justification. The case also shows that a prior denial for poor briefing does not necessarily block a later, better-argued petition, and that a detainee should not have to give up physical liberty in order to pursue an appeal. This is a single district court opinion, so it is persuasive rather than binding. Higher courts could still disagree.

28 U.S.C. § 2255;  Quesquen v. Figueroa, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231974 (W.D.Ok. October 9, 2026) Case No. CIV-26-1547-D

The petitioner is Gianfranco Antonio Pisfil Quesquen, a Peruvian citizen represented by counsel. He entered the U.S. around January 30, 2023, and was released the same day on his own recognizance. The respondents are ICE and the federal officials who hold him. He is detained at Diamondback Correctional Facility in Watonga, Oklahoma. The report was written by Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield of the Western District of Oklahoma. District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti referred the case to her, and he will make the final ruling.

ICE re-detained Pisfil Quesquen on June 10, 2026, when he went to an ICE check-in. He had been free for more than three years. He received no bond hearing, and the government did not point to any change in his circumstances. An immigration judge has ordered him removed, but his appeal is pending, so there is no final removal order. He filed a § 2241 habeas petition claiming that the re-detention violated the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The government argued the court lacked jurisdiction and that he is held under § 1225(b)(2)(A), which bars bond hearings. It conceded, however, that the Tenth Circuit's Santillan Quiroz decision "compels a different outcome." Judge Maxfield made these findings:

Jurisdiction exists. Sections 1252(g) and 1226(e) do not apply. His claim challenges the procedure used to revoke his release, not a discretionary decision or the start of removal proceedings.

INA and regulations were violated. Under Santillan Quiroz, he is held under § 1226(a) and is eligible for bond. ICE can revoke a prior release only if it shows changed circumstances. The record also does not show that an authorized official made the decision or that he was arrested on the original warrant. Nothing suggests he became a flight risk or danger.

Due process was violated. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge test, she found three things. His liberty interest is strong. The risk of error is high because he got no notice or chance to be heard. The government's interest in skipping those steps is low.

Remedy. A bond hearing is not enough. She recommends immediate release on his earlier bond conditions. She also recommends barring re-detention without notice of changed circumstances and compliance with the regulations, and requiring a declaration confirming release. The parties may object by October 16, 2026.

The report applies the Tenth Circuit's June 2026 Santillan Quiroz ruling, which is binding in this circuit. That ruling says people who entered the U.S. and were later detained in the interior are usually held under § 1226(a) and are eligible for bond, not under § 1225(b)(2)(A). The report goes further and treats unjustified re-arrest of someone already released as a separate violation. That violation calls for release, not just a hearing. It follows several other Western District of Oklahoma decisions and adds to a growing line of cases. Together they bar ICE from re-detaining people at check-ins without showing changed circumstances and giving notice. It is only a magistrate judge's recommendation, so it has no force unless the district judge adopts it. It still signals how courts in the region are likely to treat similar cases.

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!"