... and Justice for All

A Defendant Has a Right to Be Heard as to His Rule 35(b) Resentencing, Sixth Circuit Rules

A defendant, who has rendered substantial assistance to the government and been subject of a Rule 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence, must be allowed "the opportunity to express his position on the Government's motion through a response as long as the response was timely," the Sixth Circuit has ruled in United States v. Redacted Party. The case was remanded to the district court for re-sentencing.

The defendant, who was already serving a sentence in federal prison, helped "the Government solve [a] murder case and have a prosecutable case." In consideration, the Government filed a motion pursuant to Rule 35(b) that the defendant's sentence be reduced and recommended a reduction of 12 to 18 months. The same day that the government's motion was filed, the district court granted the motion and reduced defendant's sentence by 12 months. Defendant appealed and argued he should've been allowed opportunity to present evidence and argument that a greater reduction of his sentence was warranted.

The Sixth Circuit agreed and vacated the district court's order. After a brief review of other cases, the court concluded that the defendant "was entitled to have the opportunity to express his position on the government's motion through a response as long as the response was timely." The Sixth Circuit noted that the defendant was capable of presenting some material evidence to support his argument. A request that the case be reassigned to another district judge, however, was denied.

Judge John Rogers authored the Sixth Circuit's opinion and was joined by Judge Karen Nelson Moore; Judge Alice Batchelder dissented.

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Compassionate Release and the First Step Act; The Sixth Circuit and Appellate Review - "Just Give Us Something to work with"

Although the number of cases in which the Sixth Circuit reverses a district court's denial of compassionate release under the First Step Act will be very, very few -- it will take decades before the number has two digits -- you do have to give the court some credit for elevating form over substance as shown in its recent decision, United States v. Hampton.

Hampton in 2009 pleaded guilty on a cocaine charge, was sentenced to 204 months, which was later reduced to 180 months following amendments to the sentencing guidelines. He moved pursuant to the First Step Act for a further sentence reduction; the grounds for his motion are not clear, since the Sixth Circuit did not discuss those reasons at all. In any event, the district court, Hon. Patricia Gaughan of the Northern District of Ohio, turned down the motion "'for the reasons stated' in the government's brief, without further explanation." 

This wasn't enough for the Sixth Circuit to be able to conclude without question that the motion had been denied for a sound reason, since "the order here fails to identify which specific aspect(s) of the government's brief the district court found compelling [and could possibly have] impermissibly denied relief based solely" on irrelevant factors. Usually, the court added a "barebones form order" would be sufficient for "meaningful" appellate review but not in this instance and so the case was remanded "for further consideration in light of our recently announced precedent." 

Judge Chad Readler authored the opinion and was joined by Circuit Judges Raymond Kethledge and Amul Thapar. Principia uber Alles.

And so it goes.

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com