SAMARITAN NEWSLETTER – 04=28- 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.

APPEAL/CR.RIS/USSG 1B1.13(b)(6). The Sixth Circuit held the Sentencing Commission overstepped its authority in United States v. Jason Bricker, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9538 (6th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025). Jason Bricker, Ellis McHenry, and Lois Orta, sought compassionate release under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A), citing a new policy statement by the Sentencing Commission, USSG 1B1.13(b)(6). This policy allows for sentence reductions based on non-retroactive changes in the law if certain conditions are met, including serving at least 10 years of an "unusually long sentence" and a "gross disparity" between the actual and hypothetical sentences under current law. The Northern District of Ohio granted Bricker's motion for compassionate release finding his sentence would be significantly shorter under current law. The court acknowledged a Sixth Circuit precedent, United States v. McCall, which held that nonretroactive changes in the law are not "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for sentence reduction, but asserted the Sentencing Commission had overruled this precedent. The Government appealed. The Sixth Circuit reviewed the consolidated appeals and held the Sentencing Commission overstepped its authority with USSG 1B1.13(b)(6). The court concluded the policy statement was invalid as it conflicted with the statute and the separation of powers. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision in Bricker's case and affirmed the denials in McHenry's and Orta's cases, denying compassionate release for all three prisoners.

APPEAL/922(g)(3). The Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Jacqusyn Grubb, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9384 (8th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025). Grubb was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm as an unlawful user of a controlled substance under 18 USC 922(g)(3). Grubb moved to dismiss the indictment arguing the statute violated his Second Amendment rights particularly as he was a user of marijuana not a more dangerous controlled substance. The Government contended Grubb's challenge was premature due to undeveloped facts. The Northern District of Iowa denied Grubb's motion to dismiss ruling the statute was constitutional on its face but held Grubb's as-applied challenge pending trial. The court rejected Grubb's request for an evidentiary hearing stating it would amount to unauthorized discovery. Grubb then entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal. The district court later reconsidered and requested supplemental briefing but ultimately denied the motion to dismiss concluding the statute was constitutional as applied to Grubb. The Eighth Circuit held a trial on the merits was necessary to resolve Grubb's pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment. The court emphasized there is no summary judgment procedure in federal criminal cases and the Government is not required to present all its evidence before trial. The court concluded the district court should have deferred ruling on the as-applied challenge until trial. The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's order, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case allowing Grubb to choose whether to adhere to his guilty plea or proceed to trial.

APPEAL/922(g)(1). The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded United State v. Raphael Williams, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9260 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025). A grand jury indicted Williams for possessing a firearm as a felon in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1). Williams moved to dismiss the indictment arguing the prosecution

violated his Second Amendment rights and the district court granted the motion. Because Williams’s criminal history demonstrates dangerousness his 922(g)(1) charge was consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted in this court’s recent decisions in United States v. Erick Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024), and United States v. Goins, 118 F.4th 794 (6th Cir. 2024). The court reversed and remanded for trial.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Grant Davis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9380 (11th Cir. Apr. 21, 2025). Davis appealed his upward-variance sentence of life imprisonment, plus 300 months, for armed bank robbery, discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Davis argued the district court erred by failing to elicit objections after imposing his sentence resulting in an insufficient record for appellate review. He additionally argued the district court procedurally erred by basing its sentence on the government’s unsupported factual assertions and abused its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. The district court committed a reversible error as its failure to elicit objections led to a record that is insufficiently developed for appellate review. The court vacated Davis’s sentence and remanded for resentencing without addressing his challenges to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The First Circuit vacated and remanded Dionel Guia-Sendeme, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9200 (1st Cir. Apr. 18, 2025). Guía-Sendeme was involved in a venture to smuggle 135 kilograms of cocaine from the Dominican Republic to Puerto Rico. He was informed a second vessel would monitor for law enforcement. After transferring drugs from the second vessel and loading more drugs at another location Guía agreed to accompany Abel to Puerto Rico. Upon arrival, law enforcement seized the drugs, Guía was indicted on four counts related to drug trafficking and pled guilty to all counts without a plea agreement. The Probation Office recommended against a mitigating role adjustment and for a firearm enhancement. The district court imposed a 72-month sentence after granting a downward variance. Guía objected to the sentence but the court stated it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the objections. The First Circuit found the district court erred in its mitigating role analysis by not properly identifying the universe of participants involved in the criminal activity and failing to compare Guía's conduct to that of other participants. The appellate court vacated Guía's sentence instructing the district court to reconsider the mitigating role adjustment.

APPEAL/PLEA AGREEMENT. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Quamaine Smith, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8764 (4th Cir. Apr. 14, 2025). Smith pled guilty to robbery and using/brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. In his written plea agreement Smith waived his right to appeal his sentence. The district court sentenced him to 144 months. On appeal Smith argued his appeal waiver was invalid because the district court failed to properly conduct the plea hearing and because the appeal waiver was not knowing and voluntary. Smith asked the court to vacate his sentence as procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to acknowledge his non-frivolous mitigation arguments or provide an explanation for the sentence. The court held Smith’s appeal waiver was not knowingly and intelligently made and enforcing the appeal waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. The court vacated the sentence as procedurally unreasonable and remanded for reassignment to a different district judge.

APPEAL/BAD ACTS EVIDENCE. The Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Jay Sadrinia, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9025 (6th Cir. Apr. 16, 2025). Cheyenne Witt died of a morphine overdose after her dentist Sadrinia prescribed that medication twice in three days. A jury convicted Sadrinia of knowingly prescribing Witt a controlled substance without a legitimate medical purpose resulting in her death in violation of 21 USC 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The court held that sufficient evidence supported Sadrinia’s conviction. But the court agreed the district court improperly admitted—as “intrinsic evidence” of the conduct charged in the indictment—testimony about bad acts unrelated to that conduct. The Government did not even argue to the contrary. The court vacated Sadrinia’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Isaac Camon, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 24-10926 (11th Cir. Apr. 24, 2025). Camon appealed his 72-month sentence based on his conviction after he pled guilty for wire fraud and revocation of his supervised release. He argued the Government breached his written plea agreement because it stipulated to a loss amount of $19,452 for sentencing purposes, but later introduced evidence—both through his presentence investigative report (“PSI”) and at sentencing—supporting a much greater loss amount. The court vacated Camon’s sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge.

APPEAL/ERLINGER/ACCA. The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Davion Rivers, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22-14159 (11th Cir. Apr. 25, 2025). After a jury trial, Davion Rivers appealed his conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, 18 USC 922(g)(1), and his 188-month prison sentence. Rivers argued the district court erroneously denied his motions to suppress (1) the firearm found on his person and (2) a spent shotgun shell from his residence. Based on Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024), Rivers contended the district court reversibly erred in sentencing him under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) because a jury did not determine whether his prior serious drug offenses occurred on “occasions different from one another.” 18 USC 924(e). The court affirmed Rivers’s conviction, vacated his sentence under Erlinger, and remanded for resentencing.