Blog

     In a landmark decision on May 9, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set a significant legal precedent in United States v. Duarte, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 11323. This ruling vacated a previous conviction from the United States District Court for the Central District o...

BOP Administrative Process and the required deadlines.

            The recent ruling in the habeas corpus case of Casey v. United States, No. 21-1414, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10080 (1st Cir. Apr. 25, 2024) raises significant questions regarding the application of the Sixth Amendment standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.

This case was decided several years ago, but many attorney's still do not rely on the decision.  As such today we focus on the Miller case to emphasize the importance of thorough research.

November 1, 2023 is Quickly Approaching who Qualifies for Amendment 821. [Although it should be noted that the Amendment does not go into effect until February 1, 2024]. Many individuals have inquired about the eligibility criteria for the zero history points deduction outlined in Amendment 821...

U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION VOTES TO ALLOW RETROACTIVE SENTENCE REDUCTIONS ANDANNOUNCES ITS NEXT SET OF POLICY PRIORITIES The U.S. Sentencing Commission has green light the retroactive application of Amendment 821, which pertains to criminal history. This decision means that specific incarcerated...

Lora v. United States, No. 22-49, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2548 (June 16, 2023) Supreme Court Lora Decision – What you need to know. I. Introduction The case revolves around the interpretation of two subsections of the United States Code, namely 18 U.S.C. §924(c) and 18 U.S.C. §924(j). Generally, a fede...

DUBIN v. UNITED STATES, No. 22-10. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Decided June 8, 2023 In this case, petitioner, David Dubin, was convicted of healthcare fraud for overbilling Medicaid for psychological testing. The question at hand was whether his actions a...

I.  Introduction of the case: Range v. AG United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13972 (3d Cir. June 6, 2023) determined that Title 18 USC 922(g)(1) is not constitutional as applied. HOLDINGS: [1]-The federal "felon-in-possession" law—18 U.S.C.S. § 922(g)(1)—violated defendant's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms because despite defendant's false statement conviction, he remained among "the people" protected by the Second Amendment. The Court of Appeals rejected the Government's argument that only "law-abiding, responsible citizens" are protected by the Second Amendment.

03/28/2023 - Notable cases of interest.

Cases of Interest 03/27/2023. We strive on providing up the minute information on breaking cases and cases of interest Nationwide.  Feel free to contact us if you want more information on any of these cases and/or if the case of interest may assist you in any manner.

Believe it or not, someone proving they’re “actually innocent” of their criminal offense is not enough to win federal habeas corpus relief. That’s because actual innocence, by itself, is not a constitutional violation to allow for federal habeas relief. Instead, it’s only the first step toward relief, and there must also be an underlying constitutional claim. Here’s how your Legal Team should raise a successful actual-innocence habeas claim.

Cases of interest 03/21/2023. We strive on providing up the minute information on breaking cases and cases of interest Nationwide. Feel free to contact us if you want more information on any of these cases and/or if the case of interest may assist you in any manner.

Shinn v. Ramirez, 20-1009. On Monday, May 23, 2022, the Supreme Court, once again tightened the entry door for postconviction relief in most state cases. In Shinn v. Ramirez, 20-1009, the court held that under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state court record based on the ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel. In essence, if the attorney fails to timely file a document, develop a defense, or is just legally wrong on the avenues pursued, the federal court is not allowed to develop the record further beyond what is already on the record in the state court. What you see in the state record is what you get in Federal Court. The record must be developed sufficiently to allow the Federal Court to review the claim with nothing more.