The Law Office of Tom Norrid
SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC
P.O. Box 9244
Springfield, MO 65801-9244
The SAMARITAN-PROJECT prepares post-conviction and compassionate release motions under the direction of Attorney Tom Norrid. The Project retrieves documents at reasonable prices. The Project newsletter reports every winning published district court and court of appeals case for the week in review.
CR.RIS/DISPARITY/REHABILITATION/YOUTH/STACKING. The Eastern District of Virginia granted in part a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Mark Crenshaw, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34977 (E.D. Va. Feb. 26, 2025). A grand jury indicted defendant pn two counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 USC 2113(a); four counts of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 USC 2113(d); and four counts of using a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence in violation of 18 USC 924(c)(1). Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 900 months (75 years). Court vacated one of defendant's 924(c) convictions and reduced his sentence to 660 months (55 years). Defendant has served more than 10 years of his federal term of imprisonment, and his 55-year sentence is surely "unusually long," the determination of whether defendant satisfies 1B1.13(b)(6) turns on whether: (1) there is a "gross disparity" between the sentence defendant is currently serving and the sentence he would likely receive today; and (2) a full evaluation of defendant's individualized circumstances. "[A]n extraordinary and compelling reason need not have been unforeseen at the time of sentencing in order to warrant a reduction in the term of imprisonment. Therefore, the fact that an extraordinary and compelling reason reasonably could have been known or anticipated by the sentencing court does not preclude consideration for a reduction. . . ."). Defendant has participated in the BOP "Challenge Program" and also claims to have completed the BOP "Threshold Program." The Court found that defendant's rehabilitation and lack of disciplinary infractions over the past 9 years, in the face of being housed in a high security prison with limited prospects of release, are a better gauge of defendant's current characteristics than his conduct over a 6-month period 35 years ago. The Court found that all the requirements of 1B1.1(b) (6) have been met, and that defendant satisfied his burden of establishing that his unusually long sentence is an extraordinary and compelling reason that warrants a sentence reduction. Sentence reduced to 372-months.
CR.RIS/MEDICAL/REHABILITATION/DISPARITY. The District of Montana granted in part a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Tammy Halling, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31641 (D. Mont. Feb. 21, 2025). Halling argued the combination of her medical issues, post-sentencing rehabilitation, and disproportionately long sentence constitutes extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. The Court sentenced Halling to 110 years on two counts of Sexual Exploitation of Children in violation of 18 USC 2251(a), one count of Sexual Exploitation of Children in violation of 18 USC 2251(b), and one count of Distribution of Child Pornography in violation of 18 USC 2253. Halling is 56 years old and has type 1 diabetes, high blood pressure, a heart murmur, background diabetic retinopathy, diabetic neuropathy, pre-glaucoma, high cholesterol, and thyroid disorder. Halling asserts the sentence she received is greatly disparate compared to her co-defendant (A.H.). Halling asserted the only difference between Halling and her co-defendant is that A.H. took a plea agreement. Halling received a 110-year sentence (1320 months), and A.H. received a 22.5-year sentence. The Court found that the length of Halling's sentence is unusually long, and warranted reconsideration when considered with other factors. The court reduced Halling’s sentence to 360 months.
CR.RS/MEDICAL. The Southern District of Florida granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Darry Burke, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32597 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2025). A jury found defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, in violation of 18 USC 1349 (Count One) and bank fraud, in violation of 18 USC 1344 (Counts Two through Five), and sentenced him to 360 months. Defendant sought compassionate release based on his medical conditions, the BOP's alleged failure to provide him with adequate medical care, amendments to the sentencing guidelines, and rehabilitation. Regardless of whether defendant would qualify for relief based on his medical conditions and/or the BOP's alleged failure to provide proper medical care, the court found that the relatively flexible standard of USSG 1B1.13(b)(5) supplies an independent basis for reducing Defendant's sentence. Defendant's most recent medical assessment on Oct. 18, 2024 suggests his strokes caused damage to his brain, which resulted in physical issues, including right hemiparesis (weakness or inability to move one side of the body), back pain, and right foot drop. Moreover, defendant suffers from Type-2 diabetes with neuropathy pain, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, chronic hip pain, and osteoarthritis of the knee. Sentence reduced to 293 months.
APPEAL/RESTITUTION. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded United States v. Joseph Cammarata, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4183 (3d Cir. Feb. 24, 2025).
Cammarata and his associates, Eric Cohen and David Punturieri, created Alpha Plus Recovery, LLC, a claims aggregator that submitted fraudulent claims to securities class action settlement funds. They falsely represented three entities, Nimello, Quartis, and Invergasa, traded in securities involved in class action settlements, obtaining over $40 million. The fraudulent claims included falsified trade data and fabricated reports. The scheme unraveled when a claims administrator, KCC, discovered the fraud, leading to the rejection of the claims and subsequent legal action. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania charged the defendants with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and money laundering. Cohen and Punturieri pled guilty, while Cammarata proceeded to trial and was found guilty on all counts. The district court sentenced Cammarata to 120 months in prison, ordered restitution, and forfeiture of certain property. The Third Circuit upheld most of the district court's rulings but found issues with the restitution order and the forfeiture of Cammarata's vacation home. The court held the restitution order did not fully compensate the victims, as required by the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, and remanded for reconsideration. The court found procedural error in the forfeiture process as Cammarata was deprived of his right to a jury determination on the forfeitability of his property. The court vacated the forfeiture order in part and remanded for the Government to amend the order to reflect that the property is forfeitable as a substitute asset under 21 USC 853(p).
APPEAL/1983/PERSONAL PROPERTY. The Seventh Circuit remanded for an evidentiary hearing Manual Herrera Hernandez v. Lee, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3561 (7th Cir. Feb. 14, 2025). Herrera Hernandez is an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution who alleged his legal paperwork was misplaced during his temporary transfer to restrictive housing in October 2021. Hernandez filed a lawsuit in federal court under 42 USC 1983, claiming that Sergeant Lee and other prison officials deprived him of his right of access to the courts. The Eastern District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment for the defendants ruling that Hernandez failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Hernandez argued his time in restrictive housing complicated his ability to file a timely grievance and he was not provided a handbook explaining the grievance process in Spanish. The court found Hernandez did not preserve the handbook issue in the district court. However, the court determined there were genuine disputes regarding whether Hernandez had any reason to file a grievance before learning his paperwork was missing and whether Sergeant Lee's assurances excused his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual disputes regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court noted the need to determine the personal involvement of the other defendants in the alleged deprivation.
APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Jarohn Parham, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4491 (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2025). Parham appealed the 84-month sentence the district court imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1). He argued the district court erred in calculating his Sentencing Guidelines range because it incorrectly concluded that his prior conviction for Virginia common law robbery (“Virginia robbery”), under Va. Code 18.2-58 (1978), qualified as a conviction for a crime of violence for purposes of a sentencing enhancement under the U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(4)(A), 4B1.2(a). He argued that our court’s precedent establishes that Virginia robbery can be committed by threatening to accuse the victim of having engaged in sodomy, and therefore disqualifies it as a crime of violence because it criminalizes conduct broader than generic robbery. The court agreed with Parham and reversed the judgment of the district court, vacated Parham’s sentence, and remanded to the district court for resentencing.
APPEAL/JURY INSTRUCTION. The Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. William Brown, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4290 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025). Brown, while under the influence of methamphetamine, broke into a locked bathroom and fatally stabbed Damion Martin, who was embracing Brown's sister, Lacie Watson. Brown claimed he believed Martin was going to kill Watson. The Government charged Brown with First-Degree Murder in Indian Country. Brown requested jury instructions on defense of another and involuntary manslaughter, but the district court refused, citing insufficient evidence for the defense of another and omitting the involuntary manslaughter instruction without explanation. The Eastern District of Oklahoma convicted Brown of first-degree murder. However, the court later granted Brown's Rule 29 motion for acquittal on the first-degree murder charge, finding insufficient evidence of premeditation, and entered a judgment of guilty for second-degree murder, sentencing Brown to life imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. The Tenth Circuit held that the district court plainly erred by omitting the involuntary manslaughter instruction based on the theory of imperfect defense of another. The Tenth Circuit found that Brown presented sufficient evidence to warrant the instruction, as multiple witnesses testified that Brown believed Martin was going to harm Watson. The omission of this instruction affected Brown's substantial rights and the fairness of the judicial proceedings. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed Brown's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.
Comments