Sentencing

The Seventh Circuit joined the Fifth, Sixth, and Third Circuits in holding that the exhaustion requirement under 3582(c)(1)(A) is a “mandatory claim-processing rule” that cannot be waived by a court. Therefore a defendant filing a motion for sentence reduction must first submit a request the warden, wait 30 days or exhaust their remedies, or the Government may waive the requirement.

The Department of Justice has issued a memo to federal prosecutors reversing the Trump DOJ’s policy directing prosecutors to seek the harshest charges and sentences possible under the law. Until a long-term policy is implemented, the DOJ is reverting to an Obama-era policy requiring prosecutors to treat charging decisions and sentencing positions as part of an “individualized assessment.”

Earlier this month, the DOJ instructed the BOP that inmates currently on home confinement under the CARES Act will have to report back to prison once the COVID-19 emergency is over. The DOJ’s memo was issued by the Trump administration, and neither President Biden nor his nominee for Attorney General, Merrick Garland, have stated whether they will reverse that decision or require inmates on home confinement to go back to prison.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court’s holding that a defendant was ineligible for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act, which made retroactive reduced mandatory minimums for crack cocaine offenses. The Court held that a defendant who has a “covered offense” is eligible for a reduction even if he was charged with other drugs that trigger the same statutory sentencing range.

Sitting en banc, the Third Circuit held that inchoate offenses are not included in the definition of “controlled substance offenses” under the career offender guidelines because commentary to the Guidelines is not binding when it is inconsistent with or broader than the text of the Guidelines. The Court also held that a court reviewing a defendant’s Rehaif challenge under plain error review is limited to considering the record presented at trial, not the whole record, and a new trial is warranted where there is no evidence presented to a jury regarding the defendant’s knowledge of his prior felony.

The Sixth Circuit held that defendants convicted under 924(c) and involved in resentencing proceedings on remand must be sentenced subject to the First Step Act’s amendments to 924(c).

Updated September 27, 2021 – The Compilation has been updated to include cases involving inmates that have already been vaccinated or refuse to get vaccinated and cases where an inmate has been granted compassionate release while on home confinement. Attorney Tom Church has compiled a list of Compassionate Release grants and some of the key […]

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals became the fourth appellate circuit to hold that district courts reviewing an inmate’s motion for sentence reduction under 3582(c)(1)(A) have the independent discretion to determine if there are “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting the requested reduction. The Fourth Circuit joins the Second, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits in recognizing district courts’ broad discretion when reviewing requests for sentence reductions and compassionate release.

The Sixth Circuit and Seventh Circuit have joined the Second Circuit in holding that district courts considering motions for sentence reductions under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A) can exercise their discretion in determining whether an inmate has presented “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence modification.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction of a defendant in a drug conspiracy case. The Court held that recorded hearsay statements between an unindicted co-conspirator and an undercover agent were admissible against the defendant where the exsitence of a conspiracy was proved by the co-conspirator discussing drug transactions with the undercover, saying he would send “my guy” to the undercover to conduct business,” and the defendant showing up to conduct transactions as discussed. The Court also held that drug offenses under 841(a)(1) do not require willfullness, that the district court did not err in precluding the defendant from presenting a duress defense, and the district court did not err in allowing the defendant to represent himself at sentencing.