Latest Updates
December 2022 Federal Methamphetamine ACCA 924c Developments
Federal appellate and sentencing developments involving Blaszczak government-property fraud theory, Hobbs Act robbery sentencing, reckless endangerment during flight, § 924(c) discharge reduction, ACCA serious drug offense predicates, Missouri cocaine statutes, methamphetamine purity guidelines, BOP relief statistics, and federal case-screening considerations for the week of December 26–30, 2022.
Federal Relief Developments Overview
December 2022 Federal Methamphetamine ACCA 924c Developments included favorable federal appellate decisions involving government-property fraud theories after Kelly, reckless-endangerment guideline enhancements, § 924(c) discharge findings, ACCA serious-drug-offense predicates, and a notable district court opinion questioning methamphetamine purity guideline treatment.
This weekly update highlights developments from December 26–30, 2022, including United States v. Blaszczak, Kelly v. United States, United States v. Shivers, U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2, United States v. Pumpkin, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), United States v. Myers, ACCA, Missouri cocaine predicates, United States v. Robinson, methamphetamine purity, actual methamphetamine, ice, 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
January 2023 Supreme Court Conference Schedule
During the week ending December 30, 2022, the source update noted that the Supreme Court’s next conference was scheduled for January 6, 2023.
No new Supreme Court criminal-law opinion was identified in the source update for this week, but recent Supreme Court decisions continued to affect federal fraud, property, sentencing, and post-conviction review.
Federal Relief Consideration: Even during weeks without a new Supreme Court criminal decision, recent Supreme Court cases may continue to affect pending appeals, collateral review, fraud theories, sentencing enhancements, ACCA predicates, and § 924(c) counts.
Favorable Federal Appellate Developments
Second Circuit: Blaszczak Convictions Vacated After Kelly
In United States v. Blaszczak, Nos. 18-2811, 18-2825, 18-2867, and 18-2878, the Second Circuit vacated several convictions after the Supreme Court remanded the case for further consideration in light of Kelly v. United States.
The case involved alleged misappropriation of confidential information from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Defendants argued that the CMS information did not constitute “property” or a “thing of value” within the meaning of the charged federal statutes.
The government agreed that, after Kelly, the challenged substantive counts and a related conspiracy count could not stand. The Second Circuit vacated the convictions on those counts and remanded for further proceedings.
Federal Relief Consideration: Fraud, conversion, securities-fraud, honest-services, and government-information cases may deserve review where the government’s theory treated regulatory decisions, confidential agency information, licensing decisions, policy choices, or governmental control functions as “property.”
Fourth Circuit: Reckless-Endangerment Enhancement Vacated in United States v. Shivers
In United States v. Shivers, No. 21-4091, the Fourth Circuit vacated a Hobbs Act robbery sentence and remanded for resentencing without the U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 reckless-endangerment enhancement.
The district court had applied the enhancement after Shivers discarded a loaded firearm while fleeing from police. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the record did not contain sufficient evidence that Shivers created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person.
The error was not harmless because the district court did not state that it would have imposed the same sentence regardless of the enhancement.
Federal Relief Consideration: Sentencing cases may deserve review where § 3C1.2 was applied based on discarding, dropping, tossing, or abandoning a firearm during flight without evidence that the conduct actually created a substantial risk to another person.
Eighth Circuit: § 924(c) Discharge Convictions Reduced in United States v. Pumpkin
In United States v. Pumpkin, No. 20-2743, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the carjacking convictions but reduced the § 924(c) firearm convictions from discharge to use.
Pumpkin and Crowe were convicted of carjacking resulting in serious bodily injury and of using and discharging a firearm during and in relation to that crime of violence. The Eighth Circuit concluded that the evidence did not support the discharge finding because the carjacking had ended before the firearms were discharged.
The court vacated the convictions under § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), ordered them reduced to § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) use convictions, and vacated the sentences on all counts for resentencing.
Federal Relief Consideration: § 924(c) cases may deserve review where the firearm use, brandishing, or discharge occurred before or after the predicate offense, rather than during and in relation to the predicate crime.
Eighth Circuit: ACCA Serious Drug Predicate Rejected in United States v. Myers
In United States v. Myers, No. 21-3443, the Eighth Circuit held that a prior Missouri cocaine conviction did not qualify as a serious drug offense under ACCA.
The relevant version of Missouri Revised Statutes § 195.211 included certain isomers of cocaine that were not included in the federal definition of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 812(c). Because the Missouri statute was broader than the federal definition, the prior conviction did not qualify as an ACCA serious drug offense.
Federal Relief Consideration: ACCA and career-offender cases may deserve review where a state drug statute is broader than the federal controlled-substance definition, including differences involving isomers, hemp, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, or other controlled-substance schedules.
Other News
District Court Methamphetamine Purity Guideline Ruling in United States v. Robinson
The source update also discussed United States v. Robinson, No. 3:21-cr-14-CWR-FKB-2, a Southern District of Mississippi sentencing decision addressing methamphetamine purity.
The federal sentencing guidelines distinguish between methamphetamine mixture and “actual” methamphetamine or ice, producing higher guideline ranges for higher-purity methamphetamine. In Robinson, the court questioned whether purity remained a reliable proxy for culpability in modern methamphetamine cases.
The court noted that DEA data and other federal decisions suggested most methamphetamine seized today is highly pure regardless of whether the defendant is a high-level trafficker or a lower-level participant.
The court reasoned that culpability should be evaluated by examining the whole person and the circumstances of the case, rather than relying automatically on purity.
Federal Relief Consideration: Methamphetamine cases may deserve review where the guideline range was driven by actual methamphetamine, ice, purity testing, drug-weight conversions, or a purity-based guideline increase that may not reflect the person’s true role or culpability.
Why Blaszczak and Kelly Matter for Fraud Cases
Federal fraud statutes often require proof that the object of the scheme was money, property, or something that qualifies as a thing of value under the charged statute.
After Kelly and related cases, courts have taken a closer look at whether the government’s theory involves property or merely governmental regulatory power, confidential regulatory information, policy choices, or administrative decisions.
Federal Relief Consideration: Fraud review may require examining the indictment, statutory counts, jury instructions, property theory, trial evidence, government concessions, harmless-error issues, and whether the alleged object fits the charged statute.
Why Reckless-Endangerment Enhancement Review Matters
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 applies when a defendant recklessly creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person during flight.
The enhancement requires more than the mere presence of a dangerous object. The record must support a finding that the defendant’s conduct created the required substantial risk.
Federal Relief Consideration: § 3C1.2 review may require police reports, bodycam footage, dashcam footage, witness testimony, firearm location, officer distance, direction of movement, whether the firearm was loaded, and whether anyone was actually placed at substantial risk.
Why § 924(c) Timing Matters
A § 924(c) firearm conviction or enhancement depends on the relationship between the firearm conduct and the predicate offense. Timing can be critical.
If the predicate offense was already complete before a firearm was discharged, the discharge finding may not support the higher mandatory minimum under § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii).
Federal Relief Consideration: § 924(c) timing review may require examining the predicate offense, indictment, jury instructions, verdict form, trial evidence, firearm discharge evidence, sequence of events, and whether the predicate crime was ongoing when the firearm conduct occurred.
Why ACCA Drug Predicate Review Matters
ACCA can impose a 15-year mandatory minimum when a § 922(g) defendant has three qualifying violent-felony or serious-drug-offense predicates.
A state drug conviction may fail as an ACCA predicate if the state statute criminalized substances broader than the federal controlled-substance definition at the relevant time.
Federal Relief Consideration: ACCA drug-predicate review may require the state statute version, offense date, conviction date, federal drug schedule at the relevant time, categorical-approach analysis, Shepard documents, PSR, objections, and current circuit law.
Why Methamphetamine Purity Review Matters
Methamphetamine guideline calculations can produce much higher advisory ranges when the case is treated as actual methamphetamine or ice rather than methamphetamine mixture.
Several courts have questioned whether purity reliably shows higher culpability, especially where modern methamphetamine distribution often involves high-purity drugs at many levels of the supply chain.
Federal Relief Consideration: Methamphetamine sentencing review may require drug lab reports, purity findings, mixture weight, actual-meth calculation, role adjustment, safety valve, mitigating role, objections, sentencing transcript, and whether the court recognized its discretion to vary based on purity concerns.
BOP Relief Statistics Snapshot
The source update identified Bureau of Prisons statistics available at that time, including:
- Fair Sentencing and retroactive sentence reductions: 3,980 orders granted
- Elderly Offender Home Confinement: 1,217 approved
- First Step Act releases: 11,564 granted
- Compassionate release and sentence reductions: 4,385 granted
The source update also noted that 12 new compassionate-release motions and seven Fair Sentencing Act or retroactive sentence-reduction requests were granted during the week.
Federal Relief Consideration: BOP and sentence-reduction 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:
- Fraud conviction depended on confidential government regulatory information as property
- Government-property, wire-fraud, securities-fraud, or conversion count relied on a post-Kelly property theory
- § 3C1.2 reckless-endangerment enhancement was based on discarding a firearm during flight
- District court did not state whether it would impose the same sentence without a challenged enhancement
- § 924(c) discharge finding occurred after the predicate offense may have ended
- ACCA or career-offender predicate involved Missouri cocaine or another broader state drug statute
- State drug statute covered substances or isomers outside the federal schedule
- Methamphetamine sentence was driven by actual methamphetamine or ice purity
- Sentencing court treated purity as automatically showing higher culpability
- BOP, First Step Act, compassionate release, or retroactive sentence-reduction questions remain unresolved
What This Means for Federal Prisoners and Families
The December 26–30, 2022 developments show that federal relief may arise from invalid fraud-property theories, unsupported reckless-endangerment enhancements, § 924(c) timing errors, ACCA drug-predicate overbreadth, and methamphetamine purity guideline concerns.
These issues often require reviewing the indictment, jury instructions, verdict form, PSR, sentencing transcript, drug-lab report, ACCA predicate documents, state drug statutes, firearm evidence, appellate history, BOP records, and current case law.
Why a Written Case Evaluation May Help
A written case evaluation can help identify whether a federal case involves fraud-property issues after Kelly, § 3C1.2 enhancement concerns, § 924(c) timing problems, ACCA serious-drug-offense predicate issues, categorical-approach arguments, methamphetamine purity guideline challenges, compassionate-release factors, 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 reform headlines alone. A structured review can help determine what issues may actually be available.