1/30/12 - FAMM joins amicus to ensure justice for “pipeline” prisoners
On January 30, FAMM joined an amicus brief spearheaded by the ACLU in two cases being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Dorsey v. United States (11-5683) and Hill v. United States (11-5721). The cases address the contentious issue of how “pipeline” defendants – people convicted of distributing crack cocaine after the mandatory minimum for the crime was changed by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), but whose crime occurred before the FSA was enacted – should be sentenced. Read more
2011
12/21/11 - Dorsey v. United States and Hill v. United States
The Supreme Court has granted review of Dorsey v. United States and Hill v. United States. FAMM and others plan to participate in these cases by filing an amicus brief or “friend of the court" brief. These are the crack “pipeline” case challenges to the 7th Circuit rule that defendants sentenced after the Fair Sentencing Act passed on August 3, 2010 must be sentenced to the old 100:1 mandatory minimum if their crime occurred prior to Aug. 3. The government changed position earlier this year and now agrees with the petitioners that all crack defendants sentenced after August 3, 2010 should be sentenced using the new, lower mandatory minimum for crack cocaine. Because of that, the Court appointed a private attorney, Miguel Estrada, as amicus to defend the 7th Circuit’s position. The case will be argued in the spring of 2012 and a decision will be announced by the end of June 2012. Click here to read Dorsey, which in turn links to Hill.
11/1/11 - United States v. Simmons
Recently, a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals cases has been getting some attention because it changed the way courts consider prior North Carolina state convictions when a person is facing enhanced drug sentences in federal courts. The case is United States v. Simmons, No. 08-4475 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 2011) (en banc). Read more
9/1/11 - FAMM coauthors amicus in Krieger v. United States
FAMM filed an amicus brief in Krieger v. United States, a mandatory sentencing case being considered for review this session by the U.S. Supreme Court. FAMM became involved in Krieger because it raises significant questions about a frequently invoked federal mandatory minimum law, which the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reluctantly interpreted to require a far lengthier sentence - 20 years - than the district court believed was warranted for a first-time, nonviolent offender. Read more
6/29/11 - Freeman v. United States
In Freeman v. United States, No. 09-10245 (June 23, 2011), the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who enters a “binding” plea agreement may petition the court for early release should the sentencing guideline range be reduced and the reduction made retroactive. At issue was whether a sentence imposed in a crack cocaine case under a binding plea agreement could be reduced under the 2007 crack minus two amendment. Read more
6/6/11 - McNeill v. United States, No 10-5258
In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court ruled that a prior “serious drug offense” for purposes of triggering the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) mandatory minimum is defined by the maximum sentence in place when the prior drug offense was committed, even if that maximum sentence was later reduced by the legislature. Read more
3/2/11 - The High Court (once again) affirms judicial discretion at sentencing
On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Pepper v. United States, No. 09-6822, that a sentencing court may consider any post-sentence rehabilitation of a defendant who appears for resentencing after his original sentence has been set aside on appeal despite a federal sentencing guideline to the contrary. Read more
12/6/10 - Pepper v. United States heard by U.S. Supreme Court
The oral argument on December 6 in Pepper presented two issues: (1) whether the second sentencing judge had violated a rule called “the law of the case” when she reduced the first sentencing judge’s substantial assistance departure even though the 8th Circuit did not reverse that part of the original sentence, and (2) whether the 8th Circuit rule prohibiting the use of post-sentencing rehabilitation is invalid in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to make the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are advisory. Read more
11/29/10 - Update on Redd v. U.S.
On November 29, the Supreme Court denied review in the case of Redd v. U.S. (10-5016). The Court typically does not explain why it will not review a case and it did not do so here. We will keep a lookout for other promising petitions that raise the same issue presented in Redd. Click here to download the decision.
10/12/10 - Abbot and Gould v. United States
This case represents an “Aha” moment for people concerned about the harshness of the federal gun statute, 18 U.S.C. sec. 924(c). That law tells judges they must sentence people convicted of drug crimes or crimes of violence who possessed or used a gun to an extra mandatory minimum sentence of at least five years for the gun, on top of the sentence for the drug or violent crime. As it turns out, there is a little-noticed, until now, “except” clause in the statute. It says: “Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or any other provision of law…” the court shall impose the consecutive gun mandatory minimum. Read more
10/12/10 - Pepper v. United States
FAMM got involved in the case to explain why the 8th Circuits’ prohibition of post-sentencing rehabilitation is wrong. Our amicus brief says, among other things, that under an advisory system, post-sentencing rehabilitation is not off limits and in fact must be considered by judges who are directed under federal law to consider the history and circumstances of the defendant when deciding on a sentence no longer than necessary to serve the ends of justice. Read more
10/12/10 - Redd v. United States
FAMM noticed Redd v. United States and thought we should get involved at the cert stage. We don’t do this very often, but in this case we think the issue is important enough to weigh in and perhaps help get the case some attention. Redd was convicted and sentenced to the harsh Armed Career Criminal Act mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years for being a felon in possession of a firearm with three prior convictions for a drug or violent offense. The problem is that the judge relied on unsupported statements by the probation officer in the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (PSR) to determine that Redd was a three-time felon. Read more
6/17/10 - Court says Booker doesn't apply in Dillon v. United States
On June 17, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Dillon v. United States. In a 7-1 opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the case and Justice John Paul Stevens dissented), the Court held that United States v. Booker, which made the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines advisory, does not apply when a person seeks a reduced sentence based on a guideline amendment that has been made retroactive by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Read more
6/7/10 - Supreme Court rules that BOP's calculation of good time credit is correct
FAMM regrets to announce that the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the government in the case of Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. ___ (2010), ruling that the Bureau of Prisons has been correctly calculating good time for federal prisoners at 47 days for each year of time actually served, not 54 days for each year of the sentence imposed, as FAMM argued in its amicus brief. Read more
5/24/10 - Supreme Court rules machine gun 30-year mandatory minimum cannot apply without jury say so
In a victory for defendants and advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in United States v. O'Brien, et al. (No 08-1569) that a punitive 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for offenses involving a machine gun may not be imposed unless the defendant is indicted and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of using a machine gun. Read more
5/7/2010 - When does a law mean what it says?
When does a law mean what it says? Funny question, but one that is at the heart of a pair of cases FAMM is participating in at the U.S. Supreme Court: Abbott v. United States and Gould v. United States. The gun statute, 18 U.S.C. sec. 924(c), adds a mandatory minimum sentence of at least five years in addition to any other sentence imposed in a case when a person is convicted of using or possessing a firearm in connection with a violent or drug offense. Read more
3/3/2010 - A rude poke is not a violent felony, says Supreme Court
A decisive majority of the Supreme Court agreed yesterday that mere touching could not be considered use of physical force against another person. The case, Johnson v. United States, No. 08-6925, analyzed the Armed Career Criminal Statute (ACCA) that imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence when a felon in possession of a firearm has three or more prior violent felonies -- crimes that involve the use of force -- on his record. Read more
2/23/2010 - FAMM Feeling Optimistic Following Oral Argument in Gun Mandatory Minimum Case
How did we feel following the argument? In a word: optimistic. The justices were – yet again – grappling with the dreadful 18 U.S.C. §924(c), the poorly drafted and complicated gun statute. Read more
2/11/2010 - Federal statute once again under Supreme Court scrutiny
The federal gun statute, 18 U.S.C. sec. 924(c), has received a great deal of attention at the highest court in the last two court sessions. This session is no different and because the challenged statute includes many mandatory minimums, including some of the harshest in the federal criminal code, of course FAMM is involved. In United States v. O’Brien and Burgess (No. 08-1569), the Court is expected to resolve whether the provision in sec. 924(c) that imposes a 30-year mandatory minimum for machinegun use describes a separate criminal offense or merely a sentencing factor. Read more
2/5/2010 - FAMM Tells Supreme Court How to Fix Good Time Mess
For many years, prisoners, FAMM and others have asked the federal courts to strike down the way the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) awards good time credit to federal prisoners. Now a new Supreme Court case (Barber v. Thomas, No. 09-5201) challenges the way the BOP calculates good time credit. Read more about the case and FAMM's amicus brief. Read more
Archives:
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005