Sentencing

The Sixth Circuit vacated the defendant’s sentence for drug conspiracy and remanded it to the sentencing court after the court held the defendant accountable for a higher drug quantity than the jury did at trial, which the defendant argued violated his Sixth Amendment claim. The court held that the sentencing court did not adequately explain its reasoning, so it could not review the constitutionality of the defendant’s claim.

The Court held that defendants who pleaded guilty and had their pleas accepted before enactment of the First Step Act were not eligible for expanded safety-valve relief under the First Step Act, even if they were sentenced after the Act was enacted.

The district court is not required to hold a hearing prior to reducing a defendant’s sentence under the First Step Act’s retroactive penalties for crack-cocaine.

The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction for unlawfully transporting technology to Cuba without a license, holding that there was sufficient evidence that he knew his conduct was unlawful given repeated warnings he received regarding the export license requirement. The Court also held that the trial court adequately conveyed the substance of the defendant’s proposoed instruction on ignorance of the law while it did not recite it verbatim and that the defendant’s sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice was warranted given his perjured testimony at trial.

The Court affirmed the defendant’s sentence, holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the Court to weigh the defendant’s history and offense over his post-offense rehabilitation.

The Court held that the district court did not err in refusing to consider the defendant’s untimely motion to suppress, since the defendant’s failure was based on a strategic decision. Moreover, the sentencing court did not err in refusing to grant a downward departure for acceptance of responsibility where the defendant challenge his factual guilt throughout the proceedings and at trial.

The Court affirmed the defendant’s enhanced sentence under the ACCA, holding that his prior conviction for terroristic threats under Georgia law constituted a prior violent felony. The statute listed several types of offenses constituting terroristic threats and was therefore divisible, and the defendant’s conviction for threatening to commit an act of violence qualified as a predicate violent felony under the ACCA.

The outbreak of COVID-19 among the Bureau of Prisons’ facilities has been well-documented by now. The Director of the BOP recently announced that, of the few thousand inmates had been tested by the end of April, 70% tested positive for COVID-19. While Attorney General Barr has issued guidance urging the BOP to “maximize” its use […]

The Court affirmed the district court’s finding that officers’ warrantless search of a home was justified under the “emergency aid exception.” The Court held that the officers had a reasonable belief that a dog’s whimpering inside the house was a human in need of emergency aid based on their initially responding to a 911 regarding gun shots, the defendant’s belligerent behavior prior to his arrest, and the officers’ belief that someone else may have been in the house.

The Court upheld the defendant’s sentence, which the court ran consecutively to the defendant’s state-imposed prison sentence, holding that the proper standard of review is for abuse of discretion and that the sentence was substantively reasonable.