Latest Updates
July 2024 Federal Compassionate Release Sentencing Developments
Federal appellate decisions involving compassionate release, de novo resentencing after § 2255 relief, guideline miscalculations, continuing criminal enterprise instructions, plea-agreement enforcement, and firearm litigation for the week of July 15–19, 2024.
Federal Sentencing Developments Overview
July 2024 Federal Compassionate Release Sentencing Developments included favorable federal appellate rulings involving compassionate release, § 2255 resentencing, guideline calculation errors, unanimity instructions, plea-agreement disputes, and Second Amendment firearm litigation.
This weekly update highlights developments from July 15–19, 2024, including § 3582(c)(1)(A), nonretroactive changes in law, extraordinary rehabilitation, de novo resentencing, § 2255 relief, guideline miscalculations, continuing criminal enterprise convictions, plea-agreement enforcement, 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
Summer Recess
The Supreme Court remained in summer recess during the week ending July 19, 2024. The new Term was scheduled to begin in October 2024.
Federal Relief Consideration: Even during Supreme Court recess, federal circuit courts may continue issuing important sentencing, compassionate-release, post-conviction, and constitutional decisions that affect case screening.
Favorable Federal Appellate Developments
First Circuit: Sentencing Clarification Ordered in United States v. Figueroa-Roman
In United States v. Figueroa-Roman, No. 20-1170, the First Circuit vacated and remanded for clarification of the district court’s sentencing rationale.
Figueroa-Roman pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting multiple carjackings. On appeal, he argued that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court inadequately explained its reasoning and relied on factors that may have been unsupported by the record or already accounted for in the Guidelines.
The First Circuit concluded that meaningful appellate review required clarification, including regarding the sentencing court’s apparent reliance on association with convicted felons.
Federal Relief Consideration: Sentences may deserve review where the district court relied on unclear, unsupported, duplicative, or inadequately explained factors when imposing the sentence.
Second Circuit: Full De Novo Resentencing Required in Kaziu v. United States
In Kaziu v. United States, No. 21-1247-pr, the Second Circuit vacated a resentencing decision and remanded for a full de novo resentencing.
Kaziu filed a § 2255 petition arguing that two counts of conviction were unlawful after intervening Supreme Court precedent. The district court vacated one count and reduced the sentence on another count on the papers, without a full in-person resentencing.
The Second Circuit did not hold that de novo resentencing is always required after vacatur of one count on collateral review. Instead, it concluded that the district court exceeded its discretion in this case because the resentencing judge was not the original sentencing judge and the defendant plausibly alleged changed circumstances.
Federal Relief Consideration: § 2255 cases may deserve review where a conviction was vacated but the court corrected the sentence on paper instead of conducting a meaningful resentencing, especially where circumstances changed or the original sentencing judge was unavailable.
Fourth Circuit: Habeas Appeal Timing Issue Remanded in Woody v. Nance
In Woody v. Nance, No. 21-6088, the Fourth Circuit vacated the denial of a motion to reopen the appeal period and remanded for factual development.
The issue involved when Woody received notice of a certificate of appealability and whether certain filings could be treated as Rule 60(b) motions for relief from the habeas judgment.
The Fourth Circuit explained that without factfinding on notice and filing issues, it could not determine whether Woody should have been allowed to appeal the merits of his habeas petition.
Federal Relief Consideration: Habeas cases may deserve review where a prisoner missed an appeal deadline because of delayed notice, missing docket entries, prison-mail issues, or unclear post-judgment filings.
Fifth Circuit: Compassionate Release Affirmed in United States v. Jean
In United States v. Jean, No. 23-40463, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a grant of compassionate release.
The district court found that Jean exhibited extraordinary rehabilitation and that his sentence would have been nearly a decade shorter if imposed under current law. The Fifth Circuit concluded there was no abuse of discretion in considering nonretroactive changes in law together with other factors.
The court rejected a categorical bar on considering nonretroactive changes in law as part of the extraordinary-and-compelling analysis when combined with other individualized circumstances.
Federal Relief Consideration: Compassionate-release motions may deserve review where nonretroactive sentencing changes combine with extraordinary rehabilitation, unusually long sentences, medical issues, age, family circumstances, or other individualized factors.
Eighth Circuit: Guidelines Miscalculation Corrected in United States v. Bordeaux
In United States v. Bordeaux, No. 23-2988, the Eighth Circuit remanded for resentencing after identifying a guideline calculation error.
Bordeaux pleaded guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon, using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and assaulting, resisting, and impeding a federal officer. The district court mistakenly calculated an offense level of 29 rather than 28, producing a higher advisory range.
Because the correct guideline range would have been lower, the Eighth Circuit remanded for resentencing under the correct range.
Federal Relief Consideration: Guideline calculation errors may deserve review even when the numerical difference appears small, because an incorrect advisory range can affect the sentence imposed.
Eighth Circuit: Continuing Criminal Enterprise Conviction Reversed in United States v. Sledge
In United States v. Sledge, No. 23-1096, the Eighth Circuit reversed a continuing criminal enterprise conviction and remanded for a new trial.
The court concluded that the district court’s failure to issue a specific unanimity instruction was plain error that was clear or obvious under current law.
Federal Relief Consideration: Continuing criminal enterprise cases may deserve review where the jury was not properly instructed that it must unanimously agree on the specific violations or conduct supporting the conviction.
Ninth Circuit: Plea-Agreement Hearing Required in United States v. Livar
In United States v. Livar, No. 22-30213, the Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Livar’s plea agreement required the government to recommend a middle-of-the-guidelines-range sentence if he demonstrated acceptance of responsibility. The government later sought to be relieved of that obligation based on alleged new criminal conduct involving threatening statements during a prison phone call.
The Ninth Circuit held that when the government claims a defendant breached a plea agreement or failed to satisfy a condition precedent, the district court must hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve factual disputes before relieving the government of its promise.
Federal Relief Consideration: Plea-agreement cases may deserve review where the government changed its sentencing recommendation based on alleged misconduct without an evidentiary hearing or factual finding.
Firearm Litigation Watch
Ninth Circuit Orders En Banc Rehearing in United States v. Duarte
The source update also noted that United States v. Duarte, a Ninth Circuit Second Amendment case involving the federal felon-in-possession statute, was ordered reheard en banc.
The original panel decision had found that the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework rendered unconstitutional the federal prohibition on firearm possession by certain nonviolent felons. The en banc rehearing meant the panel decision would be reconsidered by a larger court.
Federal Relief Consideration: § 922(g)(1) firearm cases remain highly circuit-specific. Nonviolent prior convictions, old convictions, restoration-of-rights issues, and Second Amendment challenges may require individualized review.
BOP Relief Statistics Snapshot
The source update identified Bureau of Prisons statistics available at that time, including:
- Fair Sentencing and retroactive sentence reductions: 4,145 orders granted
- Elderly Offender Home Confinement: 1,246 approved
- First Step Act releases: 35,496 granted
- Compassionate release and sentence reductions: 4,734 granted
- Residential Reentry Center population: 8,353
- Home confinement population: 4,853
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:
- Sentence based on unclear or unsupported sentencing rationale
- § 2255 resentencing conducted on paper after vacatur of a conviction
- Changed circumstances after a successful collateral challenge
- Habeas appeal affected by delayed notice or unclear docket activity
- Compassionate-release motion involving nonretroactive law changes plus rehabilitation
- Guideline miscalculation affecting the advisory sentencing range
- Continuing criminal enterprise conviction lacking specific unanimity instruction
- Plea agreement dispute involving alleged breach or changed government recommendation
- § 922(g)(1) firearm conviction involving nonviolent felony history
- BOP, First Step Act, compassionate release, or home confinement questions
What This Means for Federal Prisoners and Families
The July 15–19, 2024 developments show that federal relief may arise from sentencing explanation problems, § 2255 resentencing procedures, compassionate-release discretion, guideline miscalculations, jury-instruction errors, plea-agreement enforcement, and evolving firearm litigation.
These issues often require reviewing the sentencing transcript, presentence report, judgment, § 2255 docket, plea agreement, compassionate-release record, jury instructions, and appellate history.
Why a Written Case Evaluation May Help
A written case evaluation can help identify whether a federal case involves compassionate-release issues, sentencing explanation errors, § 2255 resentencing problems, habeas appeal timing issues, guideline calculation errors, continuing criminal enterprise instruction issues, plea-agreement disputes, firearm litigation concerns, BOP relief issues, 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.