Latest Updates
February 2023 Federal First Step Act ACCA Ruan Developments
Federal appellate and sentencing developments involving First Step Act resentencing, Concepcion, supervised release revocation, ACCA predicates, Borden, § 924(c) brandishing evidence, Ruan medical-prescribing mens rea, Sentencing Commission proposed amendments, BOP relief statistics, and federal case-screening considerations for the week of January 30–February 3, 2023.
Federal Relief Developments Overview
February 2023 Federal First Step Act ACCA Ruan Developments included favorable appellate decisions involving First Step Act sentence-reduction explanation requirements, supervised-release revocation sentencing, ACCA predicate review after Borden, § 924(c) brandishing evidence, and controlled-substance prescribing convictions after Ruan.
This weekly update highlights developments from January 30–February 3, 2023, including United States v. Reed, United States v. Greer, United States v. White, United States v. Baker, United States v. Kahn, Concepcion v. United States, Borden v. United States, Ruan v. United States, First Step Act § 404(b), ACCA, § 924(c), supervised release, medical-prescribing jury instructions, and U.S. Sentencing Commission proposed amendments.
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
February Supreme Court Conference Schedule
During the week ending February 3, 2023, the source update noted that the Supreme Court’s next conference was scheduled for February 17, 2023.
No new Supreme Court criminal-law opinion was identified in the source update for this week, but several recent Supreme Court decisions continued to affect federal sentencing and post-conviction review, including Concepcion, Borden, and Ruan.
Federal Relief Consideration: Even when no new Supreme Court criminal opinion is released during a particular week, recent Supreme Court decisions may still control First Step Act resentencing, ACCA predicate review, medical-prescribing prosecutions, firearm counts, and post-conviction screening.
Favorable Federal Appellate Developments
Fourth Circuit: First Step Act Remand in United States v. Reed
In United States v. Reed, No. 19-7368, the Fourth Circuit vacated the denial of a reduced sentence under § 404(b) of the First Step Act and remanded for reconsideration.
The district court found Reed eligible for relief but declined to reduce his sentence. Reed argued that the court should have reduced his sentence at least to the revised statutory maximum under the Fair Sentencing Act, or at minimum addressed that argument.
The Fourth Circuit explained that Concepcion v. United States does not require a district court to reduce a sentence under the First Step Act, but it does require the court to demonstrate that it considered the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments.
Because the record did not show whether the district court considered and rejected Reed’s statutory-maximum argument, the court vacated and remanded.
Federal Relief Consideration: First Step Act § 404 cases may deserve review where the district court denied relief without addressing a nonfrivolous argument about the revised statutory range, Fair Sentencing Act maximum, guideline range, intervening law, or post-sentencing evidence.
Fifth Circuit: Supervised Release Revocation Resentencing in United States v. Greer
In United States v. Greer, No. 22-30211, the Fifth Circuit vacated a supervised-release revocation sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Greer had violated supervised release conditions more than once. The issue was how the district court should calculate the authorized term of imprisonment when revocation is based on multiple violations.
The Fifth Circuit held that when supervised release is revoked because of multiple violations, the district court may consider the nature and circumstances of all violations, but the length of a single revocation imprisonment term should be calculated based on the most serious violation.
Federal Relief Consideration: Supervised-release revocation cases may deserve review where the court calculated imprisonment based on multiple violations in a way that exceeded the term authorized by the most serious violation.
Sixth Circuit: ACCA Sentence Vacated in United States v. White
In United States v. White, No. 21-3209, the Sixth Circuit vacated an ACCA sentence and remanded for resentencing.
White challenged his armed-career-criminal designation, arguing that his Ohio aggravated-robbery convictions did not qualify as ACCA violent felonies after Borden v. United States.
The Sixth Circuit concluded that, on the record before it, the district court plainly erred in treating the Ohio aggravated-robbery convictions as violent felonies. The court noted that the result depended in part on the record’s failure to identify the underlying theft offenses or show that they had as an element the knowing or purposeful use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person.
Federal Relief Consideration: ACCA cases may deserve review where Ohio aggravated robbery or another state robbery statute was used as a predicate after Borden, especially where the record does not establish purposeful or knowing force.
Ninth Circuit: § 924(c) Brandishing Conviction Reversed in United States v. Baker
In United States v. Baker, No. 20-50314, the Ninth Circuit reversed Baker’s conviction for brandishing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii).
The panel concluded that there was reasonable doubt whether the jury would have convicted Baker of brandishing a firearm absent admission of the handgun evidence. The court therefore vacated the § 924(c) count and remanded for a sentence reduction or retrial on that count.
Federal Relief Consideration: § 924(c) cases may deserve review where firearm evidence was admitted after an unlawful search, seizure, or other constitutional violation, and the firearm evidence was important to proving use, possession, brandishing, or discharge.
Tenth Circuit: Ruan Error Requires New Trial in United States v. Kahn
In United States v. Kahn, No. 19-8054, the Tenth Circuit vacated all counts and remanded for a new trial after the Supreme Court’s decision in Ruan v. United States.
Dr. Kahn had been convicted of controlled-substance offenses involving alleged unlawful prescribing. The Supreme Court later held in Ruan that the “knowingly or intentionally” mens rea requirement in 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) applies to the “except as authorized” clause.
On remand, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the jury instructions incorrectly stated the mens rea requirement and that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the instructional error infected all counts, the court vacated all convictions and remanded for a new trial.
Federal Relief Consideration: Medical-prescribing prosecutions may deserve review where the jury instructions allowed conviction without requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner.
Other News
U.S. Sentencing Commission Proposed Amendments and Public Hearing
On February 2, 2023, the U.S. Sentencing Commission released proposed amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines.
The Commission scheduled a public hearing for February 23–24, 2023, to receive testimony on proposed amendments related to compassionate release, sexual abuse of a ward, and acquitted conduct.
The proposed amendments were important because the Commission had recently regained quorum and was beginning a major amendment cycle that later produced important 2023 guideline changes.
Federal Relief Consideration: Proposed amendments are not the same as final amendments. Case screening should distinguish between proposed guideline changes, final amendments, retroactive amendments, statutory changes, and currently binding law.
Why First Step Act Explanation Review Matters
Under Concepcion, district courts have discretion to deny First Step Act relief, but they must show that they considered the parties’ nonfrivolous arguments.
A short or unexplained denial can become vulnerable where the record does not show whether the court considered an argument about the revised statutory maximum, revised guideline range, intervening law, rehabilitation, disciplinary history, or sentencing disparity.
Federal Relief Consideration: First Step Act review may require examining the original sentence, Fair Sentencing Act changes, § 404 eligibility, revised statutory range, guideline recalculation, motion briefing, district court order, and whether key arguments were addressed.
Why Revocation Sentencing Review Matters
Supervised-release revocation sentencing can involve multiple alleged violations. But the statutory and guideline framework may still require careful attention to the most serious violation, grade of violation, original offense class, and authorized maximum.
Federal Relief Consideration: Revocation review may require examining the petition, violation grades, admitted violations, contested violations, revocation hearing transcript, original conviction class, statutory maximum, guideline policy statement range, and final judgment.
Why ACCA Predicate Review Matters After Borden
ACCA predicates must satisfy the statute’s violent-felony or serious-drug-offense definitions. After Borden, offenses that can be committed with reckless conduct generally do not qualify under ACCA’s elements clause.
Some robbery and assault statutes may be broader than ACCA if they do not require purposeful or knowing force against another person.
Federal Relief Consideration: ACCA review may require examining the statute of conviction, offense date, statute version, divisibility, Shepard documents, plea records, judgments, PSR, and current circuit authority.
Why § 924(c) Evidence Review Matters
A § 924(c) conviction can add mandatory consecutive punishment for firearm possession, use, brandishing, or discharge in connection with a qualifying crime.
Where the firearm evidence was obtained through unlawful police conduct or admitted in error, the question becomes whether the error affected the jury’s verdict.
Federal Relief Consideration: § 924(c) review may require examining suppression rulings, search-and-seizure records, firearm recovery evidence, jury instructions, verdict form, underlying predicate offense, harmless-error analysis, and sentencing consequences.
Why Ruan Review Matters for Medical Providers
Ruan changed the government’s burden in controlled-substance prescribing prosecutions. Once a defendant produces evidence that prescribing was authorized, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner.
Jury instructions that allowed conviction based on an objective standard alone may require careful review.
Federal Relief Consideration: Medical-provider cases may require examining the indictment, prescribing evidence, expert testimony, good-faith defense, jury instructions, objections, verdict form, and whether instructional error affected all counts.
Guideline Amendment Watch
The source update noted that the U.S. Sentencing Commission had released proposed guideline amendments and scheduled public hearings.
These proposals later became part of the broader 2023 amendment cycle, including important changes to compassionate release, criminal history, and other guideline provisions.
Federal Relief Consideration: Guideline-amendment review may require distinguishing proposed amendments from final amendments and determining whether a final amendment is retroactive.
BOP Relief Statistics Snapshot
The source update identified Bureau of Prisons statistics available at that time, including:
- Fair Sentencing and retroactive sentence reductions: 3,982 orders granted
- Elderly Offender Home Confinement: 1,217 approved
- First Step Act releases: 13,402 granted
- Compassionate release and sentence reductions: 4,413 granted
The source update also noted that five new compassionate-release motions were granted during the week.
Federal Relief Consideration: BOP and compassionate-release statistics can provide context, 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:
- First Step Act § 404(b) motion denied without addressing a statutory-maximum argument
- District court failed to address nonfrivolous arguments under Concepcion
- Supervised-release revocation sentence based on multiple violations
- Revocation imprisonment term may not have been calculated from the most serious violation
- ACCA sentence based on Ohio aggravated robbery or another robbery statute affected by Borden
- § 924(c) brandishing conviction depended on firearm evidence admitted after a suppression issue
- Medical-prescribing conviction involved jury instructions predating or conflicting with Ruan
- Controlled-substance provider case involved good-faith or authorization evidence
- Sentence-reduction strategy depends on proposed rather than final guideline amendments
- BOP, First Step Act, compassionate release, home confinement, or sentence-reduction questions
What This Means for Federal Prisoners and Families
The January 30–February 3, 2023 developments show that federal relief may arise from unexplained First Step Act denials, supervised-release revocation sentencing errors, ACCA predicate mistakes after Borden, § 924(c) firearm-evidence problems, and Ruan jury-instruction errors in medical-prescribing cases.
These issues often require reviewing the original judgment, First Step Act motion record, revocation petition, revocation transcript, PSR, ACCA predicate documents, suppression records, § 924(c) trial evidence, medical-prescribing jury instructions, guideline amendment status, BOP records, and appellate history.
Why a Written Case Evaluation May Help
A written case evaluation can help identify whether a federal case involves First Step Act § 404 issues, Concepcion explanation errors, supervised-release revocation sentencing problems, ACCA predicate review, Borden issues, § 924(c) firearm-evidence concerns, Ruan instructional errors, compassionate-release factors, proposed or final guideline amendments, First Step Act credits, § 2255 issues, § 2241 issues, or other post-conviction remedies.
Because many federal relief arguments are highly fact-specific, circuit-specific, and procedure-specific, families should avoid relying on general rumor or broad headlines. A structured review can help determine what issues may actually be available.