Latest Updates

June 2024 Federal Methamphetamine Sentencing Developments

Federal appellate decisions involving Rehaif error, § 922(g) convictions, drug-offense trial rulings, crime-of-violence guideline enhancements, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s methamphetamine trafficking report for the week of June 10–14, 2024.

Federal Sentencing Developments Overview

June 2024 Federal Methamphetamine Sentencing Developments included favorable federal appellate rulings involving Rehaif error, felon-in-possession convictions, drug-trafficking trial issues, crime-of-violence guideline enhancements, and a major U.S. Sentencing Commission report on methamphetamine trafficking offenses.

This weekly update highlights developments from June 10–14, 2024, including § 922(g), Rehaif v. United States, plain-error review, drug conspiracy sentencing, judgment-of-acquittal issues, new-trial rulings, Colorado felony menacing, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, methamphetamine purity, actual methamphetamine, Ice, mixture penalties, mandatory minimums, 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

Major Criminal Decisions Still Pending

During the week ending June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court held its June 13 conference and issued additional opinions. However, several major criminal-law cases remained pending at that time, including United States v. Rahimi, Fischer v. United States, Smith v. Arizona, Erlinger v. United States, Diaz v. United States, and Snyder v. United States.

These pending cases involved firearm restrictions, obstruction statutes, confrontation rights, ACCA sentencing procedure, expert testimony, and federal public-corruption statutes.

Federal Relief Consideration: Pending Supreme Court decisions may affect federal convictions and sentences, but the impact usually depends on the statute involved, the procedural history, whether the issue was preserved, and whether the decision applies on direct appeal or collateral review.

Favorable Federal Appellate Developments

Fourth Circuit: § 922(g) Convictions Reversed for Rehaif Error in United States v. Davis

In United States v. Davis, No. 20-4250, the Fourth Circuit reversed Davis’s § 922(g) convictions for Rehaif error that was cognizable on plain-error review.

Davis was convicted of two conspiracy counts and two counts of possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). His trial occurred before the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States, which required the government to prove that the defendant knew of his prohibited status when possessing the firearm.

Because the trial occurred before Rehaif, the district court and parties did not have the benefit of that ruling. The Fourth Circuit reversed the § 922(g) convictions and remanded for resentencing.

Federal Relief Consideration: § 922(g) cases may deserve review where the conviction became final after Rehaif, where knowledge-of-status evidence was disputed, where the defendant may not have known he belonged to a prohibited category, or where the jury was not properly instructed on the knowledge element.

Eighth Circuit: Judgment of Acquittal Reversed but New Trial Affirmed in United States v. Lemoine

In United States v. Lemoine, No. 23-2875, the Eighth Circuit addressed post-trial rulings after a jury found Gabriel Eduardo Lemoine guilty of three drug offenses.

The district court granted Lemoine’s renewed motion for judgment of acquittal after finding that the link between the evidence and his actions was too attenuated. The district court also conditionally granted a new trial if the acquittal ruling was overturned on appeal.

The Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment of acquittal but affirmed the order granting a new trial.

Federal Relief Consideration: Drug cases may deserve review where the evidence connecting the defendant to the alleged conduct is attenuated, where the trial record supports a new trial, or where the district court found serious concerns about the weight of the evidence.

Tenth Circuit: Colorado Felony Menacing Not a Crime of Violence in United States v. Venjohn

In United States v. Venjohn, No. 23-8028, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for resentencing after concluding that Colorado felony menacing no longer categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.

Venjohn pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). At sentencing, the district court treated his prior Colorado felony menacing conviction as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1), which increased his advisory guideline range.

In light of United States v. Taylor, the Tenth Circuit held that Colorado felony menacing no longer categorically qualifies as a crime of violence under the Guidelines and remanded for resentencing.

Federal Relief Consideration: Guideline-enhancement cases may deserve review where a prior state offense was treated as a crime of violence, violent felony, controlled-substance offense, or career-offender predicate under a categorical approach that may have changed after later Supreme Court or circuit authority.

Sentencing Commission Methamphetamine Report

U.S. Sentencing Commission Releases Methamphetamine Trafficking Report

The U.S. Sentencing Commission released a report titled Methamphetamine Trafficking Offenses in the Federal Criminal Justice System. The report examined federal methamphetamine trafficking sentences, methamphetamine purity levels, testing practices, mandatory minimum penalties, and sentencing outcomes.

According to the Commission’s findings, federal methamphetamine trafficking sentences increased substantially over a 20-year period, and methamphetamine accounted for nearly half of federal drug-trafficking cases. The report also found that methamphetamine tested in fiscal year 2022 was generally highly pure across mixture, actual methamphetamine, and Ice categories.

The Commission noted that methamphetamine is one of the controlled substances where purity affects federal statutory and guideline penalties. Because federal law treats actual methamphetamine and Ice more harshly than methamphetamine mixture, purity findings can significantly affect mandatory minimum penalties, guideline calculations, and sentencing exposure.

Federal Relief Consideration: Methamphetamine cases may deserve review where the sentence depended on actual methamphetamine, Ice, mixture-versus-actual calculations, drug purity, lab testing, mandatory minimum thresholds, guideline drug quantity, or inconsistent testing practices.

Why Methamphetamine Purity Issues Matter

Methamphetamine sentencing can be especially harsh because statutory and guideline penalties may change depending on whether the case involves mixture, actual methamphetamine, or Ice.

The Sentencing Commission’s report raised important questions about whether the current penalty structure continues to reflect meaningful differences in culpability when methamphetamine purity is now often high across many cases.

Federal Relief Consideration: A methamphetamine case may require review of the indictment, plea agreement, lab reports, drug-type findings, presentence report, guideline calculation, statutory penalty section, objections, sentencing transcript, and whether the court treated purity as a reliable proxy for culpability.

BOP Relief Statistics Snapshot

The source update identified Bureau of Prisons statistics available at that time, including:

Fair Sentencing and retroactive sentence reductions: 4,142 orders granted
Elderly Offender Home Confinement: 1,246 approved
First Step Act releases: 34,157 granted
Compassionate release and sentence reductions: 4,725 granted
Residential Reentry Center population: 8,413
Home confinement population: 4,941

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:

§ 922(g) conviction tried before Rehaif v. United States
Disputed knowledge-of-status element in a firearm case
Plain-error review involving missing Rehaif instruction
Drug conviction where evidence linking the defendant to the offense was attenuated
New-trial ruling or serious trial-record concerns in a drug case
Prior Colorado felony menacing conviction used as a crime-of-violence predicate
Guideline enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2 or career-offender provisions
Methamphetamine sentence based on actual methamphetamine, Ice, or purity findings
Mandatory minimum triggered by purity-based methamphetamine thresholds
Drug lab testing, purity testing, or inconsistent testing practices affecting sentencing

What This Means for Federal Prisoners and Families

The June 10–14, 2024 developments show that federal relief may arise from Rehaif instructional errors, drug-trial evidence concerns, categorical-approach guideline errors, and methamphetamine sentencing issues involving purity and penalty structure.

These issues often require reviewing the indictment, jury instructions, plea agreement, trial transcript, presentence report, lab reports, sentencing objections, guideline calculations, prior conviction documents, and appellate history.

Why a Written Case Evaluation May Help

A written case evaluation can help identify whether a federal case involves Rehaif issues, § 922(g) firearm errors, drug-evidence problems, crime-of-violence enhancement errors, methamphetamine purity concerns, actual-versus-mixture sentencing issues, 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.