More than a dozen new grants of federal sentence reductions using § 3582(c)(1)(A), including another based on stacking/disparity/trial penalty concerns

In recent posts here and here, I highlighted some of the COVID-influenced grants of sentence reductions using § 3582(c)(1)(A) available via Westlaw.  (And, as I keep mentioning, I think these Westlaw listings do not represent all sentence reductions being granted these days).  Though a new week is just getting started (with Westlaw only showing rulings through April 27), I have spotted lots of new grants of sentence reductions since my last posting.  It is heartening to see these rulings from coast-to-coast and lots of places in-between:

United States v. Robinson, No. 18-cr-00597-RS-1, 2020 WL 1982872 (ND Cal. Apr. 27, 2020)

United States v. Gorai, No. 2:18-CR-220 JCM (CWH), 2020 WL 1975372 (D Nev. Apr. 24, 2020)

United States v. Coles, No. 00-cr-20051, 2020 WL 1976296 (CD Ill. Apr. 24, 2020)

United States v. Thorson, No. 5:16-CR-00017-TBR, 2020 WL 1978385 (WD Ky. Apr. 24, 2020)

United States v. Williams, No. 3:17-cr-121-(VAB)-1, 2020 WL 1974372 (D Conn. Apr. 24, 2020)

United States v. Park, No. 16-cr-473 (RA), 2020 WL 1970603 (SDNY Apr. 24, 2020)

United States v. Walls, No. 92-80236, 2020 WL 1952979 (ED Mich. Apr. 23, 2020)

United States v. Jackson, No. 4:14-CR-00576, 2020 WL 1955402 (SD Tex. Apr. 23, 2020)

United States v. Tillman, No. 1:07-cv-197, 2020 WL 1950835 (WD Mich. Apr. 23, 2020)

United States v. Curtis, No. 03-533 (BAH), 2020 WL 1935543 (DDC Apr. 22, 2020)

United States v. Bess, No. 16-cr-156, 2020 WL 1940809 (WDNY Apr. 22, 2020)

United States v. Sanchez, No. 18-cr-00140-VLB-11, 2020 WL 1933815 (D Conn. Apr. 22, 2020)

In addition to this encouraging dozen of sentence reductions grants using § 3582(c)(1)(A) accelerated by COVID concerns, last week also brought a remarkable ruling that focused on pre-COVID concerns.  In United States v. Haynes, No. 93 CR 1043 (RJD), 2020 WL 1941478 (EDNY Apr. 22, 2020), the court granted relief to a fellow who, back in the early 1990s, got 40 years of extra mandatory prison time based on stacked gun charges brought by prosecutors after he turned down a plea deal calling for around an eight-year term.  As the court now explained: "Haynes has served almost 27 of the 46½ years to which he was sentenced.  To put that in context, he has served more than three times the length of the high end of the sentence he would have received had he pled guilty."  With that background and after some extended discussion of relevant precedent, the court added:

The Court readily concludes, on the facts as detailed above — including the brutal impact of Haynes’s original sentence, its drastic severity as compared to codefendant Rivers’s ten-year term, its harshness as compared to the sentences imposed on similar and even more severe criminal conduct today, and the extent to which that brutal sentence was a penalty for Haynes’s exercise of his constitutional right to trial — that the FSA’s elimination of the § 924(c) sentencing weaponry that prosecutors employed to require that sentence is an extraordinary and compelling circumstance warranting relief under § 3582(c).  For an individual like Haynes, with three pre-amended § 924(c) counts in a single indictment, the change spells the difference between thirty years in or out of prison.

I continue to be pleased to see (some) judges recognizing that 3582(c)(1)(A) motions can and should provide a means to correct (some) past unjust federal sentences.  The COVID crisis and the threat it poses to vulnerable prisoners is surely increasing the willingness of judges to review swiftly those past sentences that may no longer serve any sentencing purpose.  But, the sad reality of prison is that it is often bad, even in normal times, for the health of both inmates and the broader community.  Judge (and prosecutors and lawmakers) ought always be carefully checking and double-checking and triple-checking whether the considerable tax dollars used to keep persons incarcerated are sound public safety investments.

Prior recent related posts since lockdowns:

• Notable recent (pre-COVID) grants of sentence reductions from coast to coast using 3582(c)(1)(A) ... as FAMM urges thousand more filings in response to coronavirus
• Documenting early federal court COVID jurisprudence in response to various release requests from federal defendants and inmates 
• A few (too few) recent COVID-influenced grants of sentence reductions using 3582(c)(1)(A)
• Pleased to see growing number of COVID-influenced grants of sentence reductions using 3582(c)(1)(A)
• A few more COVID-influenced grants of sentence reductions using 3582(c)(1)(A)
• Still more COVID-influenced grants of sentence reductions using 3582(c)(1)(A), with waivers of exhaustion/waiting period 
• Additional COVID-influenced grants of federal sentence reductions using 3582(c)(1)(A) 
• Another round of recent COVID-influenced grants of federal sentence reductions using 3582(c)(1)(A)

Some (of many) pre-COVID posts on § 3582(c)(1)(A) after FIRST STEP Act:

• Compassionate release after FIRST STEP: Should many thousands of ill and elderly federal inmates now be seeking reduced imprisonment in court? 
• Sad start to what should become happier compassionate release tales after passage of FIRST STEP Act 
• Encouraging new reports about encouraging new compassionate release realities thanks to FIRST STEP Act
• Highlighting how judges can now bring needed compassion to compassionate release after FIRST STEP Act 
• Is anyone collecting and analyzing sentence reduction orders under 3582(c)(1) since passage of the FIRST STEP Act?
• Good day for thinking hard about sentencing second looks and second chances
• New District Court ruling confirms that "any extraordinary and compelling reasons" can now provide basis for reducing imprisonment under 3582(c)(1)(A)
• District Court finds statutory sentence reform among "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for reducing LWOP sentence under 3582(c)(1)(A)
• Another notable (but ultimately disappointing) ruling about sentence reductions under 3582(c)(1)(A) after FIRST STEP Act
• Another LWOP federal drug sentence reduced under 3582(c)(1)(A) after FIRST STEP Act
• Another District Court finds statutory sentence reform among "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for reducing sentence by 40 years under 3582(c)(1)(A) 
• Another thoughtful and thorough opinion finds statutory reform among "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for reducing sentence under 3582(c)(1)(A) 

Via RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247011 http://www.rssmix.com/