Latest Updates
Federal Relief & Sentencing Developments — March 9–20, 2026
Federal appellate reversals, constitutional-rights litigation, sentencing developments, and evolving federal relief considerations affecting post-conviction practice.
Federal Sentencing Developments Overview
New court decisions can create new arguments in older cases. Individuals and families may not realize that a new ruling, sentencing development, or appellate decision could affect a conviction, sentence, custody issue, or post-conviction option.
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
Second Amendment Litigation and § 922(g)(3)
The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in United States v. Hemani, a significant Second Amendment case involving 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal law that bars firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances.
The case involves questions about whether the government has sufficient historical support for applying the statute broadly to marijuana users and whether the statute sweeps too broadly when applied to individuals without evidence of active intoxication or dangerousness.
Federal Relief Consideration: If the Court narrows § 922(g)(3), future litigation may affect pending cases and could create post-conviction arguments in older federal firearm cases involving marijuana use or controlled-substance-user allegations.
Favorable Published Appellate Developments
Eighth Circuit: Sentence Vacated Over Disputed PSR Facts
In United States v. Willis, the Eighth Circuit vacated a 240-month sentence because the district court relied on disputed firearm allegations in the Presentence Report that were not proven at sentencing.
Willis objected to allegations that he possessed firearms found in a vehicle located in a detached garage. The government offered no evidence at sentencing to prove those disputed facts, but the court still treated the firearms as aggravating sentencing factors.
Federal Relief Consideration: Objected-to PSR facts are not evidence by themselves. If a sentence was increased based on disputed facts that were never proven during sentencing, the issue may deserve review.
Tenth Circuit: Immigration Plea Advice and the Sixth Amendment
In United States v. Aguayo-Montes, the Tenth Circuit reversed the denial of a § 2255 motion after finding that defense counsel gave constitutionally deficient immigration advice regarding a guilty plea.
The defendant, a longtime DACA recipient, was advised that he “may” be deported and did not need to worry about immigration consequences until later. The court held that the immigration consequences were clear enough that counsel should have advised that deportation was automatic, presumptively mandatory, or practically inevitable.
Federal Relief Consideration: Incorrect or misleading immigration advice during plea negotiations may support relief under § 2255 where the immigration consequences were clear and materially affected the plea decision.
Tenth Circuit: Firearm Conviction Reversed After Illegal Vehicle Search
In United States v. Williams, the Tenth Circuit ruled that police violated the Fourth Amendment when they searched a vehicle after the driver had already been arrested, handcuffed, and removed from the scene.
The court rejected a broad “criminality-by-association” theory and held that officers must point to specific facts showing that a passenger herself was armed and dangerous before relying on that theory to justify a search.
Federal Relief Consideration: Vehicle-search issues may deserve review where firearms, drugs, or other evidence were discovered after the main suspect had already been secured and officers lacked specific facts supporting a continued search.
Sentencing Commission Watch
The U.S. Sentencing Commission has published proposed 2026 amendments, with final adopted amendments due to be submitted to Congress by May 1, 2026.
Two areas are especially important: proposed changes involving sentencing options, including possible expansion of Zones B and C of the Sentencing Table, and proposed changes involving the career-offender guideline, including “crime of violence” and “controlled substance offense” definitions.
The Commission also asked whether any adopted changes should be made retroactive.
Federal Relief Consideration: If meaningful amendments are adopted and later made retroactive, they may affect already-sentenced individuals with career-offender issues, predicate-offense questions, sentencing-table issues, or guideline-calculation concerns.
Case Review Screening Considerations
A case-specific review may be important where any of the following issues appear in the record:
- Sentence increased by ACCA or career-offender enhancements
- Judge relied on disputed PSR facts to increase the sentence
- Defense counsel gave incorrect or incomplete plea advice
- Case involved a questionable vehicle search or firearm search
- Prior convictions may no longer qualify under current law
- New case law or sentencing developments may affect the conviction or sentence