May 2024 Federal Acquitted Conduct Sentencing Developments editorial image showing abstract acquitted-conduct guideline reform, Speedy Trial Act review, ACCA predicate resentencing, firearm jury-instruction error, inventory-search suppression, venue review, and federal post-conviction monitoring.
by

Latest Updates

May 2024 Federal Acquitted Conduct Sentencing Developments

Federal appellate decisions involving venue errors, firearm jury-instruction mistakes, Speedy Trial Act violations, ACCA resentencing, guideline double-counting issues, inventory-search suppression, advisory guideline factfinding, acquitted-conduct sentencing reform, and BOP relief statistics for the week of April 29–May 3, 2024.

Federal Sentencing Developments Overview

May 2024 Federal Acquitted Conduct Sentencing Developments included favorable federal appellate rulings involving venue, firearm jury instructions, Speedy Trial Act violations, ACCA predicate errors, guideline double-counting, inventory-search suppression, and sentencing factfinding standards.

This weekly update highlights developments from April 29–May 3, 2024, including money-laundering venue, possession-in-furtherance jury instructions, lesser-included possession instructions, Speedy Trial Act transport delays, retroactive ends-of-justice continuances, ACCA violent-felony predicates after Borden, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4, inventory searches, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s acquitted-conduct amendment.

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

No New Criminal Opinions During the Week

During the week ending May 3, 2024, the Supreme Court did not issue new criminal opinions in the source update. The Justices were scheduled to hold their next conference on May 9, 2024, with orders expected on May 13, 2024.

Federal Relief Consideration: Even when the Supreme Court does not issue new criminal opinions, federal circuit courts may continue issuing important decisions affecting convictions, sentences, suppression issues, supervised-release conditions, and post-conviction review.

Favorable Federal Appellate Developments

First Circuit: Money-Laundering Venue Error in United States v. Abbas

In United States v. Abbas, No. 22-1864, the First Circuit vacated several money-laundering and unlawful-transaction convictions without prejudice because venue did not lie in Massachusetts under the statute relied upon in the jury instructions.

Abbas was convicted after trial on wire-fraud and money-laundering-related charges involving an email-based fraud scheme. On appeal, the venue issue affected Counts Three, Four, and Five. The First Circuit vacated those convictions and remanded for resentencing and recalculation of restitution.

Federal Relief Consideration: Venue issues may deserve review where the government charged financial crimes, wire fraud, money laundering, unlawful transactions, or conspiracy counts in a district that may not have been proper under the statute and the proof presented at trial.

Sixth Circuit: Wrong Firearm Jury Instruction in United States v. Sanders

In United States v. Sanders, Nos. 23-3334 and 23-3347, the Sixth Circuit vacated firearm convictions after the jury was instructed on the wrong firearm offense.

The indictment charged the defendants with possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. However, the jury instructions described using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to drug trafficking. Those are related but distinct theories.

Because the instructions did not match the charged possession-in-furtherance count, the government agreed that the convictions on that count should be vacated.

Federal Relief Consideration: Firearm convictions may deserve review where the indictment charged one § 924(c) theory but the jury was instructed on a different theory, or where the jury instructions did not match the offense actually charged.

Sixth Circuit: Speedy Trial Act Violations in United States v. Brown

In United States v. Brown, No. 22-3797, the Sixth Circuit vacated a conviction after finding Speedy Trial Act error. The case involved delays during competency-related transport and a later retroactive ends-of-justice continuance.

Brown argued that his right to be brought to trial within the Speedy Trial Act’s time limits was violated during the 1,176 days between arraignment and guilty plea. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in denying both motions to dismiss and remanded for the district court to determine whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice.

The Sixth Circuit also rejected the district court’s retroactive ends-of-justice explanation because it did not satisfy the Act’s requirement that the court explain, on the record, why the ends of justice served by the continuance outweighed the public’s and defendant’s interest in a speedy trial.

Federal Relief Consideration: Speedy Trial Act cases may deserve review where competency transport delays, continuances, motions, or scheduling delays were excluded without proper statutory basis or adequate on-the-record findings.

Seventh Circuit: ACCA Sentence Vacated in United States v. Anderson

In United States v. Anderson, No. 21-1325, the Seventh Circuit vacated an ACCA-enhanced sentence and remanded for resentencing.

Anderson argued that his 2001 Florida aggravated-assault conviction covered reckless conduct and therefore no longer qualified as a violent felony after Borden v. United States. The Seventh Circuit agreed that the Florida conviction was not a qualifying ACCA predicate and held that the government could not substitute another prior conviction as an alternative predicate.

Because Anderson did not have three qualifying predicate convictions, the ACCA enhancement was improper.

Federal Relief Consideration: ACCA cases may deserve review where a prior conviction used as a violent-felony predicate can be committed recklessly, negligently, or without intentional use of force, or where the government attempts to rely on substitute predicates not used at sentencing.

Seventh Circuit: Guideline Double-Counting Error in United States v. Feeney

In United States v. Feeney, No. 22-2607, the Seventh Circuit vacated a sentence involving a felon-in-possession conviction and carrying an explosive during unlawful firearm possession.

At sentencing, the district court increased the base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(5) based on possession of an explosive. Feeney argued that this punished the same conduct twice in violation of Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4.

The Seventh Circuit agreed with Feeney’s interpretation of the guideline and application note, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

Federal Relief Consideration: Firearm and explosive cases may deserve review where the same conduct was used both to support a conviction and to increase the guideline range, creating a possible guideline double-counting problem.

Ninth Circuit: Inventory Search Suppression in United States v. Charles

In United States v. Charles, No. 20-50345, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc reversed the denial of a motion to suppress a firearm found during a warrantless search of a truck.

The issue was whether officers conducted a valid inventory search or whether the search was investigatory. The en banc court concluded that, based on the circumstances, the deputies acted solely for investigatory reasons and that the warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment.

Federal Relief Consideration: Suppression issues may deserve review where officers claimed an inventory search but failed to follow governing procedures, lacked a valid community-caretaking purpose, or appeared to search mainly for evidence.

Ninth Circuit: Sentencing Factfinding Standard in United States v. Lucas

In United States v. Lucas, No. 22-50064, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc vacated a sentence and remanded for resentencing after addressing the standard of proof for advisory guideline enhancements.

The en banc court held that clear and convincing evidence is not required for factual findings under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, even where large enhancements are at stake. Instead, preponderance of the evidence is sufficient for guideline factfinding.

Although this standard was government-favorable, the en banc court remanded for the district court to apply the proper standard in the first instance.

Federal Relief Consideration: Sentencing cases may still deserve review where guideline enhancements were not supported by a preponderance of reliable evidence, where the court applied the wrong standard, or where disputed facts lacked sufficient indicia of reliability.

Sentencing Commission Watch

U.S. Sentencing Commission Votes to Limit Acquitted Conduct in Guideline Sentencing

The U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to amend the federal sentencing guidelines to limit the use of acquitted conduct in calculating a guideline sentence. The source update noted the Commission’s explanation that “not guilty means not guilty” and that the amendment was intended to protect the credibility of the courts and criminal justice system.

The Commission also considered whether to make the acquitted-conduct change retroactive. The Commission received public comment on possible retroactive application of certain 2024 amendments, including comments due in June 2024.

Federal Relief Consideration: Cases may deserve review where the guideline range was increased based on conduct for which the defendant was acquitted, especially if the acquitted conduct affected drug quantity, firearm conduct, role enhancements, loss amount, violence findings, or other guideline calculations.

Why Acquitted Conduct Matters

Acquitted conduct refers to conduct underlying charges for which a jury found the defendant not guilty. Historically, federal sentencing courts could sometimes consider that conduct if the court found it proven by a lower standard at sentencing.

The Sentencing Commission’s amendment represented a major policy shift. However, the source update also noted that the rule was not absolute and that certain overlapping conduct may still matter depending on how it relates to the offense of conviction and how the guideline range is calculated.

Federal Relief Consideration: Acquitted-conduct review usually requires comparing the indictment, verdict form, jury instructions, presentence report, sentencing objections, guideline calculation, and sentencing transcript to determine whether the sentence was increased based on acquitted facts.

Why Speedy Trial Act Issues Matter

The Speedy Trial Act generally requires trial within 70 days after indictment or initial appearance, subject to statutory exclusions. Some exclusions are automatic, while others require specific findings.

Retroactive or unsupported ends-of-justice continuances can create significant problems if the court did not make the required findings on the record.

Federal Relief Consideration: Speedy Trial Act review often requires a detailed docket-by-docket calculation, including arraignment dates, motions, competency orders, transport delays, continuance orders, hearing dates, and whether each excluded period was legally valid.

Why Inventory Search Issues Matter

Inventory searches are supposed to serve administrative or community-caretaking purposes, such as protecting property or documenting contents after lawful impoundment. They are not supposed to be used as a shortcut for warrantless investigation.

When officers fail to follow standardized procedures or appear motivated by investigation rather than inventory, evidence found during the search may be subject to suppression.

Federal Relief Consideration: Inventory-search issues may require review of bodycam footage, police reports, impound forms, agency policy, officer testimony, tow records, and whether the vehicle was lawfully impounded.

BOP Relief Statistics Snapshot

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

  • Fair Sentencing and retroactive sentence reductions: 4,137 orders granted
  • Elderly Offender Home Confinement: 1,246 approved
  • First Step Act releases: 31,910 granted
  • Compassionate release and sentence reductions: 4,704 granted
  • Residential Reentry Center population: 8,322
  • Home confinement population: 4,993

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:

  • Guideline range increased based on acquitted conduct
  • Money-laundering or financial-crime conviction with disputed venue
  • Firearm conviction where jury instructions did not match the indictment
  • § 924(c) possession-in-furtherance instruction confused with use-or-carry theory
  • Speedy Trial Act delay involving competency transport or retroactive continuances
  • ACCA enhancement based on Florida aggravated assault or another reckless predicate
  • Government attempted to substitute a different ACCA predicate on appeal
  • Guideline double-counting involving firearm, explosive, or § 924(c)-related conduct
  • Inventory search used as an investigatory search
  • Large guideline enhancement based on disputed sentencing facts

What This Means for Federal Prisoners and Families

The April 29–May 3, 2024 developments show that federal relief may arise from acquitted-conduct guideline issues, venue defects, jury-instruction errors, Speedy Trial Act violations, ACCA predicate errors, guideline double counting, suppression issues, and sentencing factfinding disputes.

These issues often require reviewing the indictment, jury instructions, verdict form, docket sheet, plea agreement, presentence report, sentencing transcript, suppression record, prior conviction documents, guideline objections, and appellate history.

Why a Written Case Evaluation May Help

A written case evaluation can help identify whether a federal case involves acquitted-conduct sentencing issues, Speedy Trial Act problems, ACCA predicate errors, firearm jury-instruction errors, inventory-search suppression issues, guideline double counting, 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.

Related APEX Federal Relief Resources