All posts by lisa-legalinfo

Did DOJ Sandbag McClinton Cert Petition? – Update for February 21, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

A COUPLE OF SCOTUS RELISTS COME UP TODAY

relist230221Last week, I reported that the Supreme Court would again take up McClinton v. United States – a case on using acquitted conduct at sentencing – at last Friday’s conference. We won’t know the conference’s outcome until today at 9:30 am EST, but last week, SCOTUSblog.com had an interesting spin on the repeated McClinton relistings.

John Elwood, one of Dayonta McClinton’s lawyers and a regular SCOTUSblog contributor, wrote that McClinton and four other cases raising the same issue “are just sitting there on the court’s docket… [A]s near as we can tell, the court appears to be holding those cases to see whether the US Sentencing Commission acts on a pending proposal to place restrictions on federal courts’ consideration of acquitted conduct at sentencing.”

How come? It seems the Solicitor General wrote to the Court in January, alerting it to the Commission’s acquitted conduct proposal and implying that the Guidelines change would solve the problem, making the grant of McClinton’s constitutional challenge to acquitted conduct superfluous.

inaction230221Dayonta McClinton has argued that the USSC proposal is “woefully inadequate to resolve the issue, but it still may explain the court’s inaction,” Elwood wrote. “Things may become clearer down the road.”

Another new relist, Davis v. United States, raises a fascinating 28 USC § 2255 question: Quartavious Davis got 159 years for a string of armed Hobbs Act robberies. His two co-defendants signed plea deals and got about a tenth of that time. Quart argues his attorney was ineffective by not negotiating the same kind of plea agreement with the government. His district court denied the post-conviction petition, holding that Quart could not prove that he would have gotten a plea deal if his lawyer had advocated for one.

Quart contends it should be enough to show that similarly-situated co-defendants got plea deals, which – he argues – suggests there is no reason the government would not have given him the same benefit. The 11th Circuit disagreed, holding that he could not show prejudice absent making some showing that the government had offered him a plea deal.

catch22-230221The petition raises the Catch-22 that informs a lot of § 2255 post-conviction arguments. Under the case that shaped modern federal habeas corpus claims directed at the constitutionality of federal convictions and sentences – Strickland v. Washington – in order to make a prima facie showing that a movant is entitled to a hearing, the prisoner has to show his or her lawyer goofed, and that but for the goof, there is a reasonable probability that the goof affected the outcome.

Here, Quart has argued that probability favors his claim that the government would have made a plea offer: after all, his two co-defendants – whose culpability was little different than his own – got plea deals. Unsurprising, inasmuch as 94% of federal prosecutions end in plea deals. But the government argues that he could not prove that the government would have made an offer, so he should be denied the very hearing that he needs to prove the government would have made an offer.

Catch-22. To be entitled to a hearing that could prove an element of his claim, the movant must prove the element.

We’ll see whether the Supreme Court is interested in a case that could sharpen the definition of “reasonable probability” as used in Strickland.

McClinton v. United States, Case No. 21-1557 (certiorari filed March 15, 2022)

Davis v. United States, Case No. 22-5364 (certiorari filed August 8, 2022)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)

SCOTUSblog.com, Plea bargaining and a high-profile separation-of-powers case (February 15, 2023)

JDSupra, Sentencing Guidelines Amendment Would Preclude Acquitted Conduct from Being Used at Sentencing (January 30, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

McClinton Redux at Supreme Court – Update for February 17, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

IS TODAY THE DAY FOR ACQUITTED CONDUCT REVIEW?

relist230123At its last Friday morning conference on January 21st, the Supreme Court Justices against “relisted” McClinton v. United States rather than decided to review the 7th Circuit decision. The Justices take another whack at it today at the high court’s first certiorari conference in four weeks.

McClinton raises the issue of whether a court can take into account conduct of which a defendant is acquitted by a jury when it sentences the defendant. The Guidelines permit it, although one of the draft amendments proposed a month ago, a change to USSG § 1B1.3 (relevant conduct), proposes to add a provision that holds “related conduct” not to include acquitted conduct.

hammertime200818The McClinton case would go beyond a Guidelines amendment, however, and expressly find the practice of relying on acquitted conduct to be a violation of the 6th Amendment’s requirement that juries, not judges, find facts.  In McClinton, the defendant was hammered at sentencing for a bank robbery in which a death occurred, despite being found not guilty of murder.  His sentence was upheld by a 7th Circuit panel that felt itself bound by the 1997 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Watts.

Even so, in his majority opinion 7th Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook, a prominent conservative jurist, all but begged the Supreme Court to take up McClinton’s case. “Despite th[e] clear precedent [of Watts], McClinton’s contention is not frivolous,” he wrote for the three-judge panel. “It preserves for Supreme Court review an argument that has garnered increasing support among many circuit court judges and Supreme Court justices, who in dissenting and concurring opinions, have questioned the fairness and constitutionality of allowing courts to factor acquitted conduct into sentencing calculations.”

foodfight230217The fact that McClinton and four similar cases have been relisted by the Supreme Court four times suggests that there is sentiment among some Justices to take up the issue and strident opposition from others to leave Watts alone.

Any petition for certiorari granted from this point through June will be argued next term, beginning in October 2023.

New Republic, When You’re Sentenced for a Crime That Even a Jury Agrees You Didn’t Commit (February 1, 2023)

Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts, 88 FR 7180, (February 2, 2023)

United States v. McClinton, 23 F.4th 732 (7th Cir. 2022)

McClinton v. United States, Case 21-1557 (petition for certiorari pending)

– Thomas L. Root

Where Underperformance is ‘Success’ – Update for February 16, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BIDEN TOUTS ‘SUCCESSES’ BEFORE SOTU, BUT FAILS TO DELIVER IN SPEECH

success230216The White House touted its policies and accomplishments — including marijuana pardons, drug sentencing reform, harm reduction and enhanced enforcement for fentanyl — ahead of last week’s State of the Union speech, but then proceeded to say nothing in the speech itself about drug policy reform.

The White House promised in a factsheet that the president would “highlight progress” on criminal justice issues during the speech and included a section that directly discussed tackling the “failed approach to marijuana and crack cocaine.” But nothing was said during SOTU about it.

And little wonder. The Biden Administration’s record is one of ‘overpromise, underperform.’ Case in point? For all of the White House hand-wringing about the adverse effect on minorities of the statutory sentencing penalty for crack cocaine being much greater than powder cocaine, the EQUAL Act collapsed due to Senate wrangling at the end of the last Congress.

ineffectiveleaders230216Marijuana reform? Is that what one calls grant pardons to people who aren’t in prison and have convictions for simple pot possession? Or is that one calls the MORE Act, which breezed past the House last session but died in the Senate because Biden couldn’t corral members of his own party who wanted to tinker with it?

President Biden – an old hand at Senate procedure himself – could not get two bills passed the Senate when both had overwhelming support.

successline230216Is this what success looks like?

The Fact Sheet says “the Safer America Plan calls on Congress to end once and for all the racially discriminatory sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses — as President Biden first advocated in 2007 — and make that change fully retroactive. This step would provide immediate sentencing relief to the 10,000 individuals, more than 90 percent of whom are Black, currently serving time in federal prison pursuant to the crack/powder disparity. As an initial step, the Attorney General has issued guidance to federal prosecutors on steps they should take to promote the equivalent treatment of crack and powder cocaine offenses, but Congress still needs to act….”

And Biden needs to lead, not just posture.

leaders230216Biden’s pardon proclamation, which affected several thousand people who’ve committed federal cannabis possession offenses but not a single one in prison, “lifts barriers to housing, employment, and educational opportunities,” the Fact Sheet boasted.

A White House official said Thursday that Biden promises that “every jail and prison across the nation can provide treatment for substance use disorder.” By this summer, he said, the BOP will ensure that each of its 122 facilities are equipped and trained to provide in-house medication-assisted treatment.”

White House, FACT SHEET: The Biden-⁠Harris Administration’s Work to Make Our Communities Safer and Advance Effective, Accountable Policing (February 6, 2023)

Marijuana Moment, White House Touts Biden’s Marijuana Pardons In Preview of State of The Union Speech (February 7, 2023)

WHIO-TV, Biden wants to make opioid antidote as widely available as ventilators, drug official says (February 9, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Ain’t What You Think – Update for February 14, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION IS EASY-PEASY

If there is any post-conviction issue that is as often raised as it is without merit, it’s got to be subject-matter jurisdiction.

In second-grade civics, we 7-year-olds learned that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. As my sainted teacher, Minta Newmeyer, explained to my attentive classmates and me, this means that those courts – creatures of statute – may only hear cases on subjects approved by Congress. Want to take your neighbor to federal court because her magnolia tree drops a mess on your yard every fall?  Tough. Trespass and nuisance are perfectly good common-law claims, but Congress has not authorized federal courts to hear such quotidian bellyaches. For you to hail your pesky neighbor into federal court, you have to raise a cause of action that a federal court is allowed to hear.

easypeasy230214The concept is easy-peasy.  Yet, I see a lot of inmate-written post-conviction arguments made that the federal district court that convicted the prisoner somehow lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the underlying criminal case for one wacky reason or another.

Preparing to win a federal conviction may be as as complex as a nine-course meal, but determining subject-matter jurisdiction for a federal criminal action is as easy as boiling water. Has the defendant been accused of violating a federal criminal statute? Is the case filed in federal district court? If the answer to both questions is ‘yes’, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction.

Prisoners screw this simple concept up all the time. But they aren’t the only ones not to get it. Sometimes the court itself can be fooled, as the 5th Circuit reminded us last week.

Daisy Bleuler and Paulo Murta, both Swiss citizens working in wealth-management firms, are charged with running an international bribery scheme in which U.S. businesses laundered bribes to Venezuelan officials through their Swiss firms. Daisy has never been to the USA. Paulo came over once to Miami but not to the Southern District of Texas (where the indictment was handed up).

Eight defendants were indicted for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Two of them – Daisy and Paulo – moved to dismiss on the grounds the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court agreed, finding that “the FCPA and money-laundering statute did not apply extraterritorially,” that is, could not be applied to non-citizens’ actions that did not take place in the USA.

Because there was no “direct or undisputed evidence” Daisy had an agency relationship in the United States, the district court found that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the FCPA case. The district judge said the money-laundering counts failed because Daisy did not commit any portion of the offenses “while in the United States”; and no one alleged that Paulo was in the USA “at the time the alleged transactions occurred…”

smj230214The 5th Circuit made short work of what appears to have been a complex district court holding. “In the criminal context,” the Circuit held, “subject matter jurisdiction is straightforward.” Noting that 18 USC § 3231 provides that “the district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction… of all offenses against the laws of the United States,” the 5th said, “To invoke that grant of subject matter jurisdiction, an indictment need only charge a defendant with an offense against the United States in language similar to that used by the relevant statute. That is the extent of the jurisdictional analysis: ‘a federal criminal case is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court if the indictment charges that the defendant committed a crime described in Title 18 or in one of the other statutes defining federal crimes.”

Whether a statute reaches extraterritorial acts is a defense to a criminal charge, the Circuit said, but it is not a challenge to the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

United States v. Bleuler, Case Nos 21-20658, 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 3097 (5th Cir. Feb 8, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Detainers No Longer Disqualify Some FSA Credit Application – Update for February 13, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

FSA CREDIT BLUES

BOP Cries ‘Uncle’ On Detainer FSA Credit: As of a week ago, at least six district courts had granted habeas corpus petitions filed by prisoners denied use of FSA credits because they had detainers.

uncle230213FSA credits, for those folks tuning in late, are credits awarded to federal prisoners under the First Step Act for the prisoners successfully completing Bureau of Prisons programs that have been determined to reduce the risk of recidivism, such as GED classes, anger management, parenting skills, and drug/alcohol rehabilitation.  Prisoners may use the credits to reduce their sentences by up to one year or to get more time in halfway house or home confinement at the end of their sentences.

Despite the fact that Congress wrote detailed instructions into the law about what prisoners were to be excluded from earning FSA credits, the BOP took it upon itself to decide that other classes of prisoners – specifically those with detainers on file from state authorities or federal immigration officials – could not earn FSA credits. Unsurprisingly, a number of inmates filed petitions for habeas corpus with federal courts challenging the BOP’s unauthorized tinkering with the statutory scheme.

Last week, facing the reality that the detailed eligibility requirements Congress wrote into the FSA credit program prevents the BOP from adding its own spin to the standards as a matter of law, the Bureau abandoned its efforts to deny people with detainers the right to reduce their sentence length with FSA credits.

In a supplement to the November 2022 program statement on FSA credits issued last Monday, the BOP issued an updated P.S. 5410.01 deleting requirement that inmates have no detainers or unresolved pending charges, to include unresolved immigration status, in order to use FSA credits to shorten their sentences. Prior to the BOP program statement on FSA credits issued last November, the BOP had ruled that people with detainers or unresolved state charges were ineligible for any FSA credits. In November, the BOP moderated its position, holding that people with detainers could earn FSA credits but not spend them unless they cleared up the detainers.

Last week’s announcement wipes out any BOP resistance to people with detainers getting to apply up to 365 FSA credit to reduce their sentence length by up to a year. The only people ineligible now because of detainers are noncitizens “subject of a final order of removal under immigration laws.” And that is practically no one in the system.

A detainer will still prevent inmates from using FSA credits for halfway house or home confinement. Whether First Step’s detailed exclusions from credit override the BOP’s traditional refusal to give halfway house and home confinement to people with detainers has yet to be decided.

elsa230213PATTERN Recidivism Score Frozen on Prerelease Custody: Last week’s changes also clarify that if a prisoner has had two regular program reviews (which occur annually or more often as a prisoner approaches the end of the sentence) at which the PATTERN score was reviewed before going to halfway house or home confinement, he or she will not be reassessed again. In other words, the recidivism score you take out the prison door with you will remain yours as long as you’re in BOP custody (which you are at halfway house or on home confinement… If you go to prerelease custody before you’ve had two reassessments, however, you’ll be reassessed while you’re in halfway house or home confinement.

This should not be terribly significant unless the BOP is gearing up to start awarding FSA credits for programming and productive activities while in halfway house or on home confinement. The BOP promised this over a year ago, but nothing has happened yet to implement it.

Look Ma, No Hands!: The changes also provide that “FSA Time Credit Assessments (FTC Worksheets) will be automatically uploaded to the Inmate Central File during each auto-calculation. Inmates will be provided a copy of the most recent FTC Worksheet during regularly scheduled program reviews.”

There’s some advantage to taking the input and uploading away from case managers, in that it assures uniformity and correct calculation. On the other hand, as a lot of people have already experienced, it complicates and extends the process for getting errors corrected.

Groundhog Day at DSCC: Speaking of errors, a memorandum from the BOP’s administrator of the Residential Reentry Management Branch issued last week announced yet another nationwide re-calculation of FSA credits over the past weekend.

groundhogday230213The memo predicts “several hundred immediate releases affecting community placements, as well as the need to advance [halfway house and] home confinement dates and initiate new referrals to the Residential Reentry Office.”  Those releases should be happening between this morning and Wednesday.

The automatic calculation of FSA credits was first promised August 1, 2022, then was effective October 1, 2022, only to collapse in a heap of withdrawn credits and miscalculated dates. It was then to be fixed by January 9, and then January 23, and then February 6…

I keep hearing Sonny and Cher singing…

P.S. 5410.01CN, First Step Act of 2018 – Time Credits: Procedures for Implementation of 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d)(4) (February 6, 2023)

BOP, Retroactive Application of First Step Act Time Credits (February 9, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

11th Circuit Calls One for the Batter – Update for February 10, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT LOSS NOT A ‘STRIKE’

A prisoner unable to pay court fees may proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without prepaying fees. The Prison Litigation Reform Act, however, bars a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis if he or she has brought three or more actions or appeals in a federal court that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This is called the “three-strikes rule.”

Jeremy Wells had filed three prior actions against state prison officials. One was dismissed for failing to state a claim.  A second was dismissed for failure to exhaust remedies, and the third was denied on summary judgment for the same reason. When he filed a new case, he was denied in forma pauperis status under the “three strikes rule.”

strikethree2302310Last week, the 11th Circuit allowed Jeremy to proceed in forma pauperis. “Summary judgment based on evidence outside the face of the complaint or on something other than the allegations in the complaint is not a dismissal for failure to state a claim,” the Circuit ruled. “A complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim if the allegations, taken as true, show the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Summary judgment, on the other hand, asks whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.”

Wells v. Brown, Case No 21-10550, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 2582 (11th Cir., February 1, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

House Task Force on Prisoner Reentry Formed – Update for February 9, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

HOUSE GROUP TO TACKLE REENTRY

Two dozen House of Representatives members met a week ago to form a new Bipartisan Second Chance Task Force focused on aiding former inmates’ reentry into society.

massrelease161208The task force — with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans – is headed by Reps David Trone (D-MD), John Rutherford (R-FL), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) and Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE). Trone said the group’s goal is to introduce “common sense” legislation on issues such as employment and automatic expungement.

At its meeting last week, the group heard from BOP Director Colette Peters and National Institute of Corrections acting head Alix McLearen about challenges the BOP has faced in maintaining successful reentry programming for the roughly 50,000 people who are released from federal prisons each year.

Trone introduced the Fresh Start Act in the last Congress, and reportedly is doing so again in the 119th Congress.  The Fresh Start Act would create funding for automatic record-clearing so people with qualifying records who have completed the terms of their sentences and have remained crime-free would automatically get their records expunged. Currently, federal law does not provide for expungement or record sealing.

Law360, House Task Force Aims To Help Ex-Cons Thrive After Prison (February 2, 2023)

Justice Action Network, News From Congress: Creation Of Second Chance Task Force Draws Praise From Nations Largest Bipartisan Criminal Justice Group (February 1, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Senators Consider Sexual Assault (And How to Stop It) – Update for February 7, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

GRASSLEY, DURBIN, PADILLA MEET WITH BOP DIRECTOR PETERS TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Senators Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Alex Padilla (D-CA) met with Bureau of Prisons Director Colette Peters last Wednesday to discuss sexual misconduct by BOP personnel and the Dept of Justice’s efforts to root it out.

sexualassault211014The meeting followed letters that Grassley, Durbin, Padilla, and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) sent to DOJ last year seeking information about sexual misconduct allegations against BOP staffers.

“I appreciate that DOJ convened a Working Group to address sexual misconduct by BOP employees and that BOP has begun implementing reforms to enhance prevention, reporting, investigation, prosecution, and discipline related to staff sexual misconduct,” Durbin said. “DOJ’s report in November was evidence of the desperate need for reform and improved oversight. I will continue pushing BOP and DOJ to ensure that BOP operates federal prisons safely, securely, and effectively.”

The meeting comes as a new report released by the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that prison and jail staff rarely face legal consequences for sexual assault.

BJS released data on more than 2,500 documented incidents of sexual assault in federal and state prisons and jails between 2016 and 2018. Despite federal laws intended to create zero-tolerance policies for prison sexual abuse, most notably the Prison Rape Elimination Act, the report found that staff sexual misconduct perpetrators were convicted in only 20% of jailhouse incidents and only a 6% of substantiated prison incidents. Fewer than half of the perps lost their jobs.

“Staff sexual misconduct led to the perpetrator’s discharge, termination or employment contract not being renewed in 44 percent of incidents,” the report states. “Staff perpetrators were reprimanded or disciplined following 43% of sexual harassment incidents.”

rape230207Not everyone is sanguine about BOP efforts, nor – according to the report’s findings – should they be. In a recent release, the advocacy group FAMM said, “The Department of Justice (DOJ) is stepping up prosecutions of prison sexual assault. While commendable, jailing the abusers is not enough. It won’t heal survivors’ trauma or stop this from happening in the future. We need independent oversight to make real change. The BOP has shown that it cannot be trusted to mind its own foxes in its own hen houses.”

Sen. Charles Grassley, Grassley, Durbin, Padilla Meet With BOP Director Peters to Further Investigate Sexual Misconduct (February 2, 2023)

DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics, Substantiated Incidents of Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional Authorities, 2016–2018 (February 2, 2023)

Reason, New Data Show Prison Staff Are Rarely Held Accountable for Sexual Misconduct (February 3, 2023)

FAMM, How the Department of Justice is Failing Victims of Sexual Assault in Prison (January 24, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

Courts Blast Away at Constitutionality of Gun Possession Law – Update for February 6, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

APPEALS COURT DECLARES 18 USC § 922(g)(8) UNCONSTITUTIONAL, WHILE ELSEWHERE, DISTRICT COURT OK’S GUN-TOTING POT SMOKERS

The Supreme Court’s June 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen decision claimed another victim last week, as the 5th Circuit held that denying the right to possess guns to people subject to domestic violence protection orders violated the 2nd Amendment.

guns200304“The question presented in this case is not whether prohibiting the possession of firearms by someone subject to a domestic violence restraining order is a laudable policy goal,” the Circuit said. “The question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a specific statute that does so, is constitutional under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. In the light of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen… it is not.”

Bruen held that when the 2nd Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” The government must then prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.” Bruen, the 5th Circuit said, “clearly fundamentally changed our analysis of laws that implicate the Second Amendment… rendering our prior precedent obsolete.”

creditcardshooting230206Zack was a bad actor. While under a domestic protection order for stalking an ex-girlfriend, he ran amok in December 2020, shooting up houses, blasting away at bad drivers, firing at a police car, and even loosing off five rounds into the air when a credit card was declined at a Whataburger.

The government argued that the 2nd Amendment applies to only “law-abiding, responsible citizens,” neither of which Zack was. But the 5th rejected that interpretation:

Under the Government’s reading, Congress could remove “unordinary” or “irresponsible” or “nonlaw abiding” people — however expediently defined — from the scope of the Second Amendment. Could speeders be stripped of their right to keep and bear arms? Political nonconformists? People who do not recycle or drive an electric vehicle? One easily gets the point: Neither Heller nor Bruen countenances such a malleable scope of the 2nd Amendment’s protections…

The Circuit held that the government had not shown that § 922(g)(8)’s restriction of 2nd Amendment right “fits within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation… As a result, § 922(g)(8) falls outside the class of firearm regulations countenanced by the 2nd Amendment.”

gun160711Meanwhile, a Western District of Oklahoma court last Friday dismissed an indictment alleging violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) – prohibiting a drug abuser from possessing a gun – based on Bruen. The defendant had moved to dismiss the indictment because 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) was so vague as to violate 5th Amendment due process. But in a 52-page decision that read more like a law review article than an order granting a pretrial motion, the court ignored due process and applied Bruen instead: “Because the Court concludes that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates Harrison’s Second Amendment right to possess a firearm, the Court declines to reach Harrison’s vagueness claim.”

United States v Rahimi, Case No 21-11001, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 2693 (5th Cir. Feb 2, 2023)

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022)

United States v. Harrison, Case No. CR-22-00328-PRW, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18397 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 3, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root

7th Circuit Finds the Jurisdictional ‘Force’ Is With This One – Update for February 3, 2023

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

COURT DOESN’T LACK JURISDICTION JUST BECAUSE YOU MIGHT LOSE

Wolfgang Von Vader had some run-ins that resulted in a 2000 conviction in the Western District of Wisconsin for distributing methamphetamine (a Guidelines “career offender” 270-month sentence) and a 2012 federal conviction in Kansas for possessing heroin in prison (a 120-month consecutive sentence).

jurisdiction180410Wolf applied for 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A) compassionate release in both Kansas and Wisconsin. Both courts shot him down. The Kansas decision is currently on appeal in the 10th Circuit. In the Wisconsin case, the government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider Wolf‘s compassionate release motion because he had already served all of his 2000 Wisconsin sentence, and is now on his consecutive 2012 Kansas sentence. Section 3582(c) does not authorize release from an expired sentence, the government contended, which makes Wolf’s Wisconsin compassionate release motion moot.

The district court agreed, and dismissed Wolf’s motion for lack of jurisdiction.

Last week, the 7th Circuit disagreed, reversing Wolf’s dismissal. Maybe a retroactive reduction is unauthorized by statute, the Circuit said, “but we do not see how this moots [Von Vader’s] request. If § 3582(c) does not supply authority for the relief Von Vader wants, then he loses on the merits, not for lack of jurisdiction.”

vader230203“The judge in Wisconsin could order the Bureau of Prisons to treat the Wisconsin sentence as if it had expired earlier and to reduce the time remaining on the Kansas sentence accordingly,” the 7th ruled. “Or the court in Wisconsin could make an adjustment in the length of supervised release, on the Wisconsin sentence, tht will follow the conclusion of the Kansas sentence. As long as relief is possible in principle, the fact that a given request may fail on statutory grounds does not defeat the existence of an Article III case or controversy.”

United States v. Von Vader, Case No 22-1798, 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 1750 (7th Cir., January 24, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root