Latest Updates

July 2026 Federal ACCA, Firearm Sentencing & Resentencing Developments

Federal criminal law developments for July 27–31, 2026 involving ACCA predicates, § 922(g) Second Amendment challenges, firearm Guideline cross-references, crime-of-violence enhancements, mitigating-role reductions, self-representation at sentencing, federal expungement proposals, clemency, and federal resentencing.

Federal Criminal Law Developments Overview

The final weeks of summer are ordinarily quieter in the federal courts, but July 27–31 produced a significant number of federal criminal and sentencing developments.

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits issued decisions involving resentencing or further constitutional review. Several addressed the Armed Career Criminal Act, firearm enhancements, Second Amendment challenges, the constitutional right to self-representation, and calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines.

The Supreme Court also agreed to consider an Excessive Fines Clause case involving forfeiture of a valuable aircraft following a misdemeanor conviction.

Outside the courts, discussion continued over a possible federal expungement process, while developments involving presidential pardons and commutations highlighted the uncertainty surrounding executive clemency.

Federal Relief Consideration: These developments demonstrate why federal sentencing and post-conviction review often requires comparison of the actual conviction, predicate offenses, Presentence Investigation Report, Guideline calculations, objections, appellate history, and current law.

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

Jouppi: When Does Criminal Forfeiture Become an Excessive Fine?

The Supreme Court has agreed to review Jouppi v. Alaska, No. 25-246, involving forfeiture of an airplane valued at approximately $95,000 following a misdemeanor alcohol-importation conviction.

Kenneth Jouppi was preparing to fly a passenger and groceries from Fairbanks to Beaver, Alaska, when state troopers discovered beer aboard the aircraft. The destination was a community in which alcohol importation was prohibited.

Jouppi maintained that he did not know the passenger had brought the alcohol aboard, but a jury convicted him and his aviation company.

In addition to three days in jail and a $1,500 fine, Alaska sought forfeiture of his Cessna aircraft.

The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court and raises an important Eighth Amendment question: when determining whether forfeiture is excessive, should courts focus primarily on the seriousness of the general category of offense or more closely examine the particular defendant’s conduct, culpability, and circumstances?

Federal Relief Consideration: The eventual decision could affect constitutional challenges to forfeiture of vehicles, currency, real estate, and other property when the value of the property substantially exceeds the seriousness of the underlying conduct.

Second Amendment Watch

Fifth Circuit Reconsiders the Reach of § 922(g)(1)

Developments in United States v. Squire and United States v. Debrow continue to raise important questions concerning 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal felon-in-possession statute.

In Squire, the Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc in a case involving Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g)(1).

Squire argued in part that Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause authority by criminalizing firearm possession based on the firearm’s previous movement through interstate commerce.

The grant of en banc review does not mean that § 922(g)(1) has been invalidated. It means the full court has agreed to reconsider the constitutional questions presented.

Debrow involved an as-applied Second Amendment challenge by a defendant whose disqualifying conviction involved aggravated criminal damage to property.

The Fifth Circuit emphasized that the relevant constitutional inquiry generally focuses on the qualifying felony conviction rather than simply relying on allegations, dismissed charges, or other conduct that did not independently produce a felony conviction.

The court remanded for further consideration rather than finally dismissing the indictment.

Federal Relief Consideration: Individualized Second Amendment challenges may require careful examination of the actual predicate conviction, statutory elements, criminal history, procedural posture, and controlling circuit precedent.

Fourth Circuit

Melvin: Government Cannot Add a New ACCA Predicate After Its Original Choices Fail

In United States v. Melvin, No. 23-4622 (4th Cir. July 27, 2026), the Fourth Circuit vacated an Armed Career Criminal Act sentence after concluding that the government improperly introduced a new predicate conviction after two predicates originally identified in the Presentence Investigation Report failed.

Donald Craig Melvin pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm.

His PSR identified four prior convictions as potential ACCA predicates. Melvin successfully challenged two, leaving only two qualifying convictions—one fewer than the three required for the ACCA enhancement.

After those challenges succeeded, the government attempted to introduce a different 1995 conviction that had not originally been identified as an ACCA predicate.

The district court allowed the new predicate and ultimately imposed a 188-month sentence.

The Fourth Circuit held that the procedure violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 because the government had not timely objected to the PSR and had not demonstrated adequate cause for its delay.

The court also rejected the government’s later attempt to invoke Melvin’s appeal waiver because the government previously had responded to his claims on the merits without relying on the waiver.

Without the newly added predicate, Melvin was not subject to the ACCA enhancement. The Fourth Circuit therefore vacated the sentence and ordered resentencing without ACCA.

Federal Relief Consideration: ACCA review should include not only whether the prior convictions legally qualify, but also which predicates were actually identified in the PSR, whether objections were timely made, and how the sentencing court resolved those objections.

Jaqu: Right to Self-Representation Applies at Sentencing

In United States v. Jaqu, No. 21-4677 (4th Cir. July 27, 2026), the Fourth Circuit vacated a 388-month sentence after concluding that the district court improperly denied the defendant’s request to represent himself at sentencing.

Kenyada Jaqu requested self-representation after trial but well before sentencing.

The district court denied the request as untimely because it had not been made before or during trial.

The Fourth Circuit concluded that the wrong timeliness standard had been used.

The Sixth Amendment right of self-representation applies at sentencing as well as at trial. A defendant does not necessarily have to invoke that right before trial merely to preserve the ability to proceed without counsel during sentencing.

The judgment was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing, with the district court required to determine whether Jaqu’s waiver of counsel is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Federal Relief Consideration: Requests for self-representation at sentencing should be evaluated separately from requests made after trial proceedings already have begun.

Fifth Circuit

Murphy: 30-Year Sentence Vacated Over Firearm Murder Cross-Reference

In United States v. Murphy, No. 24-30347 (5th Cir. July 23, 2026), the Fifth Circuit vacated a 360-month sentence after concluding that the district court improperly applied a first-degree-murder cross-reference under the firearm Guideline.

Trayvon Murphy pleaded guilty to drug-trafficking, firearm, and Hobbs Act offenses.

At sentencing, the district court found that Murphy supplied a rifle used by a codefendant in a killing and applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c)(1)(B).

That cross-reference increased the advisory Guideline range to 324 to 405 months, and Murphy received a 360-month sentence.

The Fifth Circuit upheld several factual and Guideline findings but concluded that the murder cross-reference itself could not apply because the rifle used in the killing was not “cited in the offense of conviction.”

Neither the superseding indictment nor Murphy’s factual resume identified that particular firearm.

The court explained that the “offense of conviction” requirement is narrower than ordinary relevant-conduct principles.

Murphy’s sentence was therefore vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

Federal Relief Consideration: Firearm Guideline cross-references should be compared closely with the indictment, plea documents, factual basis, PSR, sentencing findings, and exact language of the Guideline provision being applied.

Sixth Circuit

Smith: Resentencing Ordered After Missed Mitigating-Role Reduction

In United States v. Smith, the Sixth Circuit vacated a sentence after a district court granted a mitigating-role adjustment but failed to apply an additional reduction required by the drug Guideline.

Saruba Smith was convicted of aiding and abetting distribution of methamphetamine and fentanyl.

The district court found that she qualified for a mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

Because her base offense level was 32, that determination also entitled her to an additional two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5).

The additional reduction was not applied.

Although Smith did not object at sentencing, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the mistake constituted plain error and remanded for resentencing.

Federal Relief Consideration: A sentencing calculation should be reviewed line by line. Even when the court correctly grants one adjustment, another Guideline provision may require an additional corresponding reduction.

Eighth Circuit

Striplin: § 922(g)(3) Case Returned for Individualized Second Amendment Review

In United States v. Striplin, No. 24-2969 (8th Cir. July 28, 2026), the Eighth Circuit returned a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for further Second Amendment consideration.

Benjamin Striplin was charged with firearm possession as an unlawful user of controlled substances.

The district court rejected his constitutional challenge largely on the proposition that legislatures historically could disarm categories of people considered dangerous.

The Eighth Circuit concluded that a categorical analysis was insufficient under intervening Second Amendment precedent.

The court required a more individualized historical inquiry into whether the particular defendant’s drug use and conduct are analogous to circumstances in which historical firearm restrictions would have applied.

The court did not finally dismiss the charge and rejected Striplin’s separate vagueness claim.

Federal Relief Consideration: A remand for constitutional review does not itself establish that a firearm conviction is invalid. The outcome still depends on the individualized record and the historical analysis required by governing precedent.

Ninth Circuit

Lopez: Prior Crime-of-Violence Precedent Overruled

In United States v. Lopez, No. 24-3268 (9th Cir. July 28, 2026), the Ninth Circuit vacated a felon-in-possession sentence after concluding that a California domestic-violence conviction did not categorically qualify as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines.

Jonathan Lopez’s base offense level had been increased under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) based on prior California convictions.

The Ninth Circuit determined that prior circuit precedent could no longer stand after intervening decisions concerning the required mens rea for a qualifying crime of violence.

Because the California statute reaches conduct below the applicable federal elements-clause standard, it was not categorically a crime of violence.

Lopez’s sentence was vacated and the matter remanded for resentencing without the enhancement.

Federal Relief Consideration: A prior conviction that qualified as a crime of violence when a defendant originally was sentenced may need to be reexamined after intervening Supreme Court or circuit precedent changes the categorical analysis.

Sentencing Commission Watch

No Methamphetamine-Purity Amendment Adopted for 2026

The United States Sentencing Commission considered modifying Guideline treatment of methamphetamine purity during the 2025–2026 amendment cycle.

The proposal addressed the substantial sentencing difference among methamphetamine mixture, methamphetamine actual, and “Ice.”

The Commission considered changes that could have reduced or eliminated the existing disparity based on purity.

The proposed methamphetamine-purity amendment was not adopted.

As a result, the amendments scheduled to take effect November 1, 2026 retain the existing methamphetamine quantity and purity distinctions.

Federal Relief Consideration: Defendants should not assume that a methamphetamine-purity reduction was adopted or presently provides retroactive relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).

Federal Legislative Watch

Could Congress Create a Federal Expungement Pathway?

Discussion continues over whether Congress should create an earned pathway allowing some individuals to seal or expunge federal criminal records after completion of their sentences and a substantial period of rehabilitation.

Federal law currently offers very limited avenues for clearing an adult federal conviction.

Unlike many state systems, federal law generally does not provide a broad statutory procedure allowing a person to obtain expungement merely because the sentence has been completed and the individual has lived a productive, crime-free life.

Congress could create such a process, potentially including waiting periods, proof of rehabilitation, completion of sentencing obligations, notice to interested parties, and individualized judicial review.

Whether Congress ultimately will enact such legislation remains uncertain.

Federal Relief Consideration: At present, individuals should be cautious of claims promising guaranteed federal expungement without identification of a specific recognized statutory or legal basis.

Clemency Watch

Clemency Remains an Extraordinary and Discretionary Remedy

Recent developments involving federal pardon and commutation applications again illustrate the uncertainty of presidential clemency.

The Constitution gives the President broad pardon authority, but an applicant generally has no enforceable right to clemency or guarantee that relief will be granted.

A denial does not necessarily prevent a person from submitting a later petition based on changed circumstances, additional rehabilitation, new legal developments, serious health concerns, or other new information.

A presidential pardon also ordinarily does not erase the underlying conviction or remove the federal court record.

Federal Relief Consideration: Clemency is an extraordinary executive remedy and should be distinguished from judicial remedies such as § 2255, § 2241, compassionate release, or statutory sentence reductions.

Fast Screening Considerations

A case-specific review may be especially important where any of the following issues appear:

An ACCA enhancement depended on prior convictions that may no longer qualify
The government relied on an ACCA predicate that was not timely identified in the PSR
A firearm Guideline cross-reference substantially increased the advisory range
The firearm supporting a cross-reference was not identified in the offense of conviction
A mitigating-role adjustment should have triggered an additional Guideline reduction
A sentencing calculation contains an apparent mathematical or Guideline application error
A prior conviction was classified as a crime of violence under older precedent
Intervening precedent may have changed the categorical analysis of a predicate offense
A § 922(g)(1) or § 922(g)(3) conviction raises an individualized Second Amendment question
A request for self-representation at sentencing was denied
A sentencing error was not objected to and plain-error review may apply
A defendant believes a proposed Guideline amendment already provides retroactive relief
A person is considering clemency but may have a separate judicial remedy available

What These Developments Mean for Federal Prisoners and Families

This week’s decisions demonstrate how sentencing outcomes can turn on procedural and Guideline details that initially appear technical.

In Melvin, the timing and identification of an ACCA predicate changed the applicable statutory exposure.

In Murphy, the wording of the offense of conviction controlled whether a murder cross-reference could be used.

In Smith, failure to apply an additional Guideline reduction required resentencing.

And in Lopez, intervening precedent changed how earlier convictions were analyzed under the crime-of-violence definition.

These decisions also illustrate why some older federal sentences may deserve renewed review when the law governing predicates, enhancements, or Guideline calculations has changed.

Why a Free Federal Case Lookup May Help

A free federal case lookup can provide an initial review of publicly available case information, docket history, sentencing details, appellate activity, and related records that may help identify whether a recent legal development deserves closer examination.

A lookup is not a complete legal analysis and does not determine that relief is available. Its purpose is to identify whether something in the available record may warrant further review.

When to Consider a Federal Case Assessment

A more detailed federal case assessment may be appropriate when preliminary review identifies a potentially significant issue requiring analysis of materials beyond the public docket.

Depending on the case, relevant materials may include the indictment, plea agreement, Presentence Investigation Report, Statement of Reasons, judgment, sentencing transcript, prior-conviction records, appellate decisions, prior § 2255 proceedings, firearm records, and other sentencing materials.

A federal case assessment may help determine whether the record presents issues involving ACCA, § 922(g), crime-of-violence predicates, firearm cross-references, Guideline errors, plain error, appellate proceedings, § 2255, clemency, or another federal relief pathway.