SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – 03-31- 2025

Satellite Law Office of Tom Norrid

SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC 

4415 Gladstone Blvd.

Kansas City, MO 64123

attorneytnorridnews@gmail.com

samaritanprojects@gmail.com

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.

SUPREME COURT. Bondi v. Vanderstok, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 1280 (S. Ct. Mar. 26, 2025). The case involves the interpretation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) in relation to weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers. The GCA mandates that those involved in the import, manufacture, or sale of firearms must obtain federal licenses, keep sales records, conduct background checks, and mark their products with serial numbers. The Act defines a "firearm" to include any weapon that can expel a projectile by explosive action and the frame or receiver of such a weapon. With the rise of weapon parts kits that can be assembled into functional firearms, the ATF adopted a rule in 2022 to include these kits under the GCA's regulations. The District Court vacated the ATF's rule, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the GCA does not cover weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers. The Fifth Circuit affirmed this decision, holding that the GCA's definition of "firearm" does not extend to weapon parts kits or unfinished frames and receivers, regardless of their completeness or ease of assembly. The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision. The Court held that the ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA. The Court found that some weapon parts kits, like Polymer80's "Buy Build Shoot" kit, qualify as "weapons" under the GCA because they can be readily converted into functional firearms. Additionally, the Court held that the GCA's definition of "frame or receiver" includes some partially complete frames or receivers that can be easily finished using common tools. The Court concluded that the ATF has the authority to regulate these items under the GCA. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

APPEAL/CR.RIS. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Reyes Flores, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6659 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2025). Reyes Flores appealed the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. The court’s independent review of the record revealed the district court failed to provide any reasons for its denial of Flores's motion. Moreover, the court could not discern the district court's reasons from the record because the Government did not file a written opposition to Flores's motion and the court did not hold a hearing.  The court vacated the district court's order and remanded for the district court to explain its reasons for denying Flores's motion.

CR.RIS/DISPARITY/STACKING/REHABILITATION/1B1.13(b)(6). The District of Arizona granted in part a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Joel Thomas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55934 (D. Ariz. Mar. 26, 2025). Thomas is serving a 40.5-year prison sentence on multiple counts of conspiracy, bank robbery, and brandishing firearms during crimes of violence. He filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing his sentence is unusually long in light of recent changes in the law. The Court granted the motion in part and reduced Thomas's sentence to 24 years. The Commission's recent amendment to 1B1.13, adding "unusually long sentence[s]" to the list of extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction, does just that. The Ninth Circuit relying on Conception has "join[ed] the First, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits [in concluding] that a district court may consider the [FSA's] non-retroactive changes to sentencing law . . . when determining whether there are extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction" under 3582(c)(1)(A).

CR.RIS/REHABILITATION/1B1.13(b)(6). The Middle District of Florida granted in part a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Eugene Davis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54546 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2025). The court sentenced Davis to a mandatory life term for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 280 grams or more of cocaine base. Davis is 50 years old and sought compassionate release under Section 3582(c)(1)(A). He argued compassionate release is appropriate because his mandatory life sentence is longer than the sentence he would receive today and "is drastically longer than those of more than 88% of all other defendants sentenced in the last decade." He emphasizes his rehabilitative efforts while in prison and his family support as an "other reason" warranting compassionate release. Davis has a low recidivism risk calculated by the Bureau of Prisons, and has obtained his GED and participated in numerous educational and vocational programs. The court was impressed by Davis's completion of the Challenge Program, "a 500-hour minimum intensive mental health and substance abuse program, focused on addressing criminal thought and behavioral patterns," and his participation as a mentor to other inmates. The defendant’s sentence was reduced to 300 months.

APPEAL/SUCCESSIVE 2254. The Sixth Circuit authorized the filing of a successive 2254 motion: In re Danny Hill, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6946 (6th Cir. Mar. 25, 2025). In 1986, Danny Hill, then 18 years old, was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. One of the prime pieces of evidence showing that Hill participated in the criminal acts that resulted in the death was a bitemark on Fife’s penis that a forensic odontologist stated could have been made only by Hill. Modern forensic scientists no longer endorse using bite-marks to identify perpetrators of crimes. Not only that, but five forensic scientists, including a former president of the American Board of Forensic Odontology (“ABFO”), now unequivocally state the mark found on Raymond Fife cannot be construed as a human bitemark. The en banc court directed the panel to decide whether this evidence “can meet the gatekeeping provision of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(B).” The court determined that Hill has made “a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of this subsection.” 28 USC 2244(b)(3)(C). The court granted Hill’s motion for authorization to file a second or successive habeas application.

APPEAL/PROFFER. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded United Sates v. Juan Grogan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7094 (6th Cir. Mar. 27, 2025). A jury convicted Juan Grogan of possessing a firearm as a felon, possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute. At trial, the judge allowed the Government to admit testimony about a series of statements Grogan made during a proffer session. The statements concerned his ownership of drugs, a firearm, and a wallet, and his involvement in a shooting and a kidnapping.

On appeal, Grogan argued the admission of this evidence was an error. Under the proffer agreement, the Government could introduce a particular statement from

the proffer session if Grogan testified or presented arguments inconsistent with that statement. Grogan contends admission of the evidence was an error because neither of these conditions were met. The court agreed with him. The error was not harmless so the court reversed.

AMENDMENT 821. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Melissa Barrett, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7111 (4th Cir. Mar. 27, 2025). Barrett is serving a 168-month sentence for federal drug offense. Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines has taken effect and made retroactive, Amendment 821 limited the impact of “status points” that had been used to calculate Barrett’s original Guideline range. Barrett moved the court to reduce her sentence to 120 months. The Government agreed Barrett was eligible for a sentence reduction but disagreed as to the scope of Amendment 821’s retroactive effect. Barrett argued Amendment 821 affected both her criminal history category and her offense level, leading to a substantial reduction in her Guideline range. The Government believed Amendment 821 should be applied retroactively only to Barrett’s criminal history category, producing a more modest effect on her sentencing range. The district court sided with the Government and reduced Barrett’s sentence to 150 months, rather than the 120 months Barrett had requested. On appeal, Barrett argued the district court erred by failing to give full retroactive effect to Amendment 821. The court agreed and vacated the district court’s judgment and remand for further consideration of Barrett’s motion.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing United States v. Cesar Arciniegas Sanchez, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6750 (11th Cir. Mar. 24, 2025). Arciniegas Sanchez appealed his sentence for conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine knowing that it would be imported into the United States. The Government filed a joint motion for summary reversal. The parties entered a plea agreement, in which the Government agreed to recommend a 70-month sentence at the low-end of the guidelines range. The parties contend the Government breached the plea agreement by arguing that a sentence of 80-months’ imprisonment would be appropriate to avoid a sentencing disparity with a co-defendant before acknowledging it was bound by the plea agreement to recommend a 70-month sentence. The court granted the joint motion for summary reversal and remanded the case for resentencing according to the terms of the plea agreement before a different judge.