SAMARITANPROJECTS NEWSLETTER -03-17-2025

The Law Office of Tom Norrid

SAMARITAN PROJECTS LLC 

P.O. Box 9244

Springfield, MO 65801-9244

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.

CR.RIS/MEDICAL. The Southern District of Georgia granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. James Gaddy, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46120 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 13, 2025). A jury found Gaddy guilty on all counts of the redacted indictment: kidnapping (Count 1), interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle (Count 2), sale and receipt of a stolen motor vehicle (Count 3), possession of a stolen weapon (Count 4), and fraud (Count 5). Gaddy was sentenced to life as to Count 1; five years' custody as to each of Counts 2 through 4; and ten years' custody as to Count 5, all to be served concurrently. Gaddy argued he qualifies for compassionate release based on the "age," "medical condition," and "other reasons" categories of extraordinary and compelling reasons. Gaddy is 84-years old with a past medical history notable for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [(COPD)], coronary artery disease [(CAD)], chronic kidney disease, cataracts, peripheral neuropathy, borderline type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, hypothyroidism, gastroesophageal reflux disease, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Dr. Hiensch stated "medical comorbidities are his remaining life expectancy is less than three years." The evidence shows Gaddy is experiencing a serious deterioration of his physical health due to aging. He therefore satisfied all factors required under 1B1.13(b)(2) ("Age of the Defendant") and shown an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting a sentence reduction. Sentence reduced to time served.

CR.RIS/FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES. The Southern District of California granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Vanessa Mora, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43103 (S.D. Calif. Mar 10, 2025). The Government filed an information charging defendant with one count of importation of methamphetamine (felony) in violation of 21 USC 952 and 960. Defendant was sentenced to 12 months and 1 day followed by three years of supervised release. Defendant contended her failure to be timely transferred to the BOP and receive its reentry support and drug programming, coupled with the unique fact of that her child may be put up for adoption on April 8, 2025 are extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentencing reduction. The court agreed. Sentence reduced to time served.

CR.RIS/MEDICAL. The Northern District of California granted a CR.RIS motion in United States v. Ole Hougen, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43824 (N.D. Calif. Mar. 10, 2025). Defendant is currently serving an 82-month sentence for a hate crime conviction with an expected release date in July 2025. Hougen requested compassionate release under 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) based on his end-stage liver disease and BOP's failure to provide the necessary care in custody. Defendant has been diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver. A liver transplant specialist reviewed the records produced by BOP, as well as defendant's records from Highland hospital, and concluded his condition is advanced, with an end-of-life trajectory, and he requires a liver transplant assessment and specialized treatment and care that is not being provided in BOP custody. The Court found defendant's end-stage liver disease is an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant compassionate release under USSG 1B1.13(b)(1)(A) and 1B1.13(b)(1)(C), and his early release is consistent with the Sentencing Commission's policy statement and appropriate in consideration of 18 USC 3553(a). Sentence reduced to time served.

APPEAL/CR/RIS. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in United States v. Eural Black, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5634 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025). Black sought a sentence reduction under the compassionate release statute, 18 USC 3582(c)(1)(A), citing the First Step Act's anti-stacking amendment. Black is serving a 40-year sentence, 30 years of which were due to stacked 924(c) convictions. The First Step Act restricted the stacking of sentences under 924(c), but Congress made this amendment nonretroactive. In 2024, the Sentencing Commission amended a policy statement to allow prisoners serving unusually long sentences to seek reductions due to changes in the law. The Northern District of Illinois denied Black's motion relying on the Seventh Circuit's decision in United States v. Thacker which held the First Step Act's anti-stacking amendment is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. Black appealed. The Seventh Circuit reaffirmed its holding in Thacker stating the anti-stacking amendment cannot be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction even when combined with other factors. The court found the Commission's policy statement USSG 1B1.13(b)(6) which allowed for such consideration, exceeded its statutory authority and conflicted with the First Step Act. The court held Black was ineligible for a sentence reduction based on the anti-stacking amendment.

APPEAL/RESENTENCE. The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Tyzheem Nixon, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5506 (4th Cir. Mar. 10, 2025). Nixon pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1) and 924. While incarcerated and awaiting sentencing, he committed several acts of violence, including multiple stabbings. The district court sentenced Nixon to more than double the Sentencing Guidelines range for his felon in possession charge, relying almost entirely on Nixon’s violent acts while awaiting sentencing to justify the upward departure. The court disregarded a report from an unrebutted qualified medical expert that found Nixon’s violent conduct was the result of his mental health condition and if treated Nixon would pose little continued threat to society. The court found the district court’s sentence in this case was procedurally unreasonable. The district court improperly relied on dissimilar conduct in departing to a higher criminal history category and failed to give proper consideration to intervening categories and offense levels as required by the Sentencing Guidelines. The court vacated the sentence and remanded with instructions the district court recalculate Nixon’s criminal history category without improper consideration of dissimilar conduct. 

APPEAL/DISMISS CHARGES. The Fourth Circuit remanded United States v. Gerald Wheeler, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5503 (4th Cir. Mar. 10, 2025).

Wheeler appealed the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to six months of imprisonment followed by an additional year of supervised release. He argued that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted hearsay evidence during his revocation hearing and the improper hearsay evidence was essential to the district court’s finding that he violated his supervised release. The court agreed. Because the district court abused its discretion in admitting the hearsay evidence and could not have found the violation without that evidence, the court vacated the district court’s judgment on the revocation of supervised release and dismissed the Revocation Petition.

APPEAL/SUPERVISED RELEASE. The Tenth Circuit vremanded United States v. Tegan Gulley, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5468 (10th Cir. Mar. 10, 2025). Gulley served a three-year term of supervised release after being convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Five days before his supervised release term expired a petition to revoke his supervised release was filed and a summons was issued. The district court delayed the revocation hearing for six months at Gulley’s request, during which he was ordered to remain on his already-expired term of supervision. Ultimately, the district court revoked his supervision and imposed a custodial sentence of 15 months. The District of Kansas initially handled the case. The district court issued a summons before the expiration of Gulley’s supervised release term and set a revocation hearing for a month later. At the hearing, Gulley admitted to eight violations of his supervised release. The district court granted Gulley’s request to delay the revocation hearing for six months to allow him to demonstrate his compliance with the law. However, the district court unlawfully extended Gulley’s term of supervision during this period. The Tenth Circuit held the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the revocation petition because the six-month delay was not “reasonably necessary” under 18 USC 3583(i). The Tenth Circuit concluded the district court unlawfully extended Gulley’s term of supervision which had already expired, therefore, the delay could not be deemed reasonably necessary. The Tenth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded with instructions to release Gulley from custody.

APPEAL/IDENTITY THEFT. The Eighth Circuit vacated and remanded United States v. Joe May, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5709 (8th Cir. Mar. 23, 2025). May was indicted for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and violations of the Anti-Kickback statute, among other charges, related to defrauding TRICARE. May, a medical doctor, was recruited to sign prescriptions for compounded drugs without evaluating patients. He signed 226 prescriptions, mostly without determining medical necessity. May received cash payments for his participation. When investigated, May created false medical records and lied to the FBI. The Eastern District of Arkansas convicted May on all counts and sentenced him to 102 months imprisonment, ordering restitution of over $4.6 million. May appealed, challenging the admission of business records, limitations on cross-examination, jury instructions, the government's closing argument, and the sufficiency of evidence for certain charges. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting business records or limiting cross-examination. The court upheld the jury instructions and found no error in the government's closing argument. The court determined there was sufficient evidence for the conspiracy, mail fraud, and kickback charges. However, the court found plain error in one count of aggravated identity theft related to Perry Patterson, as the jury was not instructed on the correct underlying offense. The Eighth Circuit reversed the conviction on the aggravated identity theft count related to Patterson, remanded to vacate the special assessment for that count, and affirmed all other aspects of the case.