Sentencing

In a drug-conspiracy appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence after finding the district court’s drug-quantity estimate relied on unreliable confidential-source hearsay. The court rejected a due-process challenge to an in-chambers evidentiary ruling and held any Rule 404(b) error harmless.

In a plea-agreement appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the rejection of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement but held that the district court abused its discretion in subsequently rejecting a charge bargain plea agreement, citing deference to prosecutorial charging discretion.

In a habeas appeal concerning First Step Act credits, the Ninth Circuit held that earned time credits may be applied to reduce the length of a supervised release term, reversed the district court’s dismissal, and remanded for recalculation and transmission of credits to probation.

The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive amendment under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1. The Court held that § 6A1.3(a)’s notice-and-opportunity protections apply to § 3582(c)(2) proceedings, but there was no due-process violation because the district court relied on information used at the original sentencing, not “new information.”

The Second Circuit affirmed a jury verdict finding a medical billing company owner guilty of health care fraud, conspiracy, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft, but vacated his 144-month sentence, $63.38 million forfeiture judgment, and $336.99 million restitution award. The Court held the district court procedurally erred by lengthening the prison term based on the prospect of First Step Act earned-time credits and RDAP benefits, misapplied two Guidelines enhancements without adequate findings, and used flawed methodologies for forfeiture and restitution.

In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court held that the First Step Act’s reduced penalties for § 924(c) offenses apply at a defendant’s resentencing when the defendant’s prior sentence has been vacated. The Court reasoned that a vacated sentence is a sentence that “has not been imposed” within the meaning of § 403(b).

Late last month, the U.S. Sentencing Commission delivered its annual proposed amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, we’ve broken down the most significant changes, including a new prohibition on increasing a defendant’s sentence based on acquitted conduct, an amendment reinforcing the availability of intended loss and unlawful gain as measures for calculating a defendant’s loss amount, clarifying amendments regarding certain firearm enhancements, and a new downward departure for youthful offenders.

Zachary Newland of Newland Legal provides a detailed breakdown of the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s proposed amendments to the Guidelines, which will be incorporated into the 2024 Guidelines Manual.

Zachary Newland of Newland Legal provides the Federal Docket with a detailed breakdown of the most important amendments to the Guidelines, as incorporated in the 2023 Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Last week, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to make a pair of Guidelines amendments retroactive, meaning they could apply to thousands of federal inmates serving time. Under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2),”in the case of defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission…upon motion of the defendant …the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent they are applicable ….” 

In a 4-3 vote, the Commission voted to make the “status points” amendment retroactive. Whereas a defendant previously received 2 points for committing an offense while under a term of supervision (probation, supervised release), the new Guidelines amendment will reduce the number of points or eliminates them completely for such offenders. By making this amendment retroactive to offenders who previously received the 2-point enhancement, almost 11,500 inmates are eligible for a potential sentence reduction. The average inmate would have had a lower Guidelines range by 14 months under the new Guidelines.

In another 4-3 vote, the Commission voted to make the “zero point offender” amendment retroactive. Under the new Guidelines, offenders will receive a 2-point reduction to their offense level if they have no criminal history and their offense does not present certain aggravating factors. Over 7,272 inmates would have been eligible for this reduction, and the average inmate would have had a lower Guidelines range by 15 months under the new Guidelines.

The retroactive amendments go into effect on February 1, 2024, though inmates can file motions for sentence reductions immediately.

In other Commission-related news, the Commission voted to consider additional policies such as “possible amendments to the Guidelines Manuel to prohibit the use of acquitted conduct in applying the guidelines.”