Latest Updates
August 2024 Federal Firearm Sentencing Developments
Supreme Court summer recess activity, favorable appellate decisions involving severance, § 922(g)(3), premises enhancements, and firearm litigation after Rahimi for the week of August 26–30, 2024.
Federal Sentencing Developments Overview
August 2024 Federal Firearm Sentencing Developments included a Third Circuit fair-trial severance ruling, a Fifth Circuit Second Amendment ruling involving § 922(g)(3), a Seventh Circuit drug-premises enhancement reversal, and continued firearm litigation after United States v. Rahimi.
This weekly update highlights developments from August 26–30, 2024, including Rule 14 severance, competing defense narratives, marijuana-related firearm possession, § 922(g)(3), § 922(g)(1), drug premises enhancements, First Step Act releases, compassionate release, and BOP relief statistics.
This federal relief update is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create legal representation.
Supreme Court Watch
Summer Recess and September Order Lists
The Supreme Court remained in summer recess during the week ending August 30, 2024. Summer order lists were scheduled for September 6, 2024.
Summer order lists often involve motions, rehearing petitions, and other pending matters. Emergency orders may still be released as needed during recess.
Federal Relief Consideration: Even when Supreme Court activity is limited, lower-court decisions may continue applying recent Supreme Court rulings to firearm, sentencing, and post-conviction issues.
Favorable Federal Appellate Developments
Third Circuit: Conviction Vacated for Severance Error in United States v. Green
In United States v. Green, No. 23-2476, the Third Circuit reversed the denial of a severance motion, vacated Green’s conviction and sentence, and remanded for further proceedings.
The case involved competing defense narratives in a joint trial. The Third Circuit emphasized that when one defendant’s defense effectively requires the jury to convict another defendant in order to acquit the first, separate juries may be necessary to protect the right to a fair trial.
The court concluded that Cornelius Green was not afforded the kind of trial required under those circumstances.
Federal Relief Consideration: Joint trials may deserve review where co-defendants presented mutually antagonistic defenses, where one defense required blaming another defendant, or where the denial of severance created substantial prejudice.
Fifth Circuit: Narrow § 922(g)(3) As-Applied Relief in United States v. Connelly
In United States v. Connelly, No. 23-50312, the Fifth Circuit addressed Second Amendment challenges to firearm charges involving marijuana use.
Paola Connelly was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances, and § 922(d)(3), which concerns providing firearms or ammunition to such a person.
The Fifth Circuit concluded that historical tradition may support some firearm restrictions involving presently intoxicated persons, but did not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance use. The court affirmed dismissal of the § 922(g)(3) charge as applied to Connelly, while rejecting broader facial challenges.
Federal Relief Consideration: § 922(g)(3) cases may deserve careful review where the person was sober, nonviolent, and charged based on past or occasional controlled-substance use rather than firearm possession while presently intoxicated or dangerous.
Seventh Circuit: Drug-Premises Enhancement Vacated in United States v. Montgomery
In United States v. Montgomery, No. 23-1976, the Seventh Circuit vacated a sentence involving the two-level premises enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12).
Montgomery pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine. The district court applied the enhancement after finding that an off-site storage unit was used primarily to facilitate drug activity.
The Seventh Circuit concluded that the record did not establish that a primary use of the storage unit was drug distribution. The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing without the premises enhancement.
Federal Relief Consideration: The premises enhancement may deserve review where the government did not prove that drug distribution or manufacturing was one of the primary uses of the location, rather than an incidental or occasional use.
Firearm Litigation Watch
Williams, Rahimi, and § 922(g)(1) Dangerousness Arguments
The source update also discussed United States v. Williams, a Sixth Circuit decision involving § 922(g)(1), the federal felon-in-possession statute.
Although Williams was not defendant-favorable on its facts, it was important because the Sixth Circuit analyzed § 922(g)(1) after United States v. Rahimi. The court concluded that § 922(g)(1) was constitutional as applied to Williams because his record showed dangerousness.
The decision may still matter for screening because it discussed individualized dangerousness in as-applied Second Amendment challenges.
Federal Relief Consideration: § 922(g)(1) challenges remain highly circuit-specific. A person with old, nonviolent, or unusual prior convictions may require a different analysis than someone with a record involving violence or firearm misuse.
BOP Relief Statistics Snapshot
The source update identified Bureau of Prisons statistics available at that time, including:
- Fair Sentencing and retroactive sentence reductions: 4,146 orders granted
- Elderly Offender Home Confinement: 1,246 approved
- First Step Act releases: 37,083 granted
- Compassionate release and sentence reductions: 4,750 granted
- Residential Reentry Center population: 8,485
- Home confinement population: 4,947
Federal Relief Consideration: BOP statistics can help show how certain relief mechanisms are being used, but they do not determine whether a specific person qualifies for relief.
Fast Screening Considerations
A case-specific review may be especially important where any of the following issues appear in the record:
- Joint trial involving mutually antagonistic defense theories
- Denied severance motion under Rule 14
- Conviction where one defendant’s defense required blaming another defendant
- § 922(g)(3) firearm charge based on controlled-substance use
- Marijuana-related firearm possession where the person was not presently intoxicated
- § 922(g)(1) firearm charge involving nonviolent or older prior convictions
- Second Amendment challenge after Rahimi
- Drug-premises enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12)
- Storage unit or residence used only incidentally in a drug case
- Compassionate release, First Step Act, home confinement, or BOP custody-related issues
What This Means for Federal Prisoners and Families
The August 26–30, 2024 developments show that federal relief issues may arise from trial structure, constitutional firearm challenges, and sentencing guideline enhancements.
Green shows why severance and fair-trial issues matter in joint trials. Connelly and Williams show that firearm challenges after Rahimi remain fact-specific. Montgomery shows that guideline enhancements must be supported by the record.
Why a Written Case Evaluation May Help
A written case evaluation can help identify whether a federal case involves severance issues, mutually antagonistic defenses, § 922(g) firearm challenges, Second Amendment arguments, premises-enhancement problems, BOP relief questions, compassionate-release factors, or other post-conviction remedies.
Because many federal relief arguments are highly fact-specific and circuit-specific, families should avoid relying on general rumor or broad headlines. A structured review can help determine what issues may actually be available.