Gregory Taylor was sentenced to ten years imprisonment following a jury trial in the District of North Dakota. After losing his appeal, Taylor hired the firm to assist him with a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. An evidentiary hearing was granted on Taylor’s claims of ineffective assistance against his two former trial attorneys. The district court granted Taylor § 2255 relief, finding that Taylor’s attorneys affirmatively misrepresented his chances of winning at trial, causing him to lose out on a two-year plea deal. In so holding, the court wrote that Taylor’s attorneys “fail[ed] to understand the basic law of conspiracy and how it might apply to Taylor’s case.” Taylor’s drug conviction was overturned, and Taylor was ordered released on bail. United States v. Taylor, No. 3:09-CR-69-9 (D. North Dakota).
CRIMINAL DEFENSE CASE RESULTS
Client retained the firm after failing to receive a reduction in sentence for cooperation provided to the federal government. As a result of a series of letters, phone calls, and negotiations, the Government agreed to request a lower sentence. The court granted the prosecution’s motion, reducing the client’s sentence to TIME SERVED and the client was IMMEDIATELY RELEASED.
The firm was hired to seek relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) in light of Amendment 782 to the federal sentencing guidelines, more commonly known as “drugs minus 2.” The firm presented a polished motion that discussed the law, the client’s background, and what the client’s release plans were. The court granted relief, ordering the client be granted TIME SERVED and released on November 2, 2015.
Client retained the firm to seek retroactive drug sentencing relief based on Amendment 782 to the federal sentencing guidelines. The court granted the firm’s motion, reducing the client’s sentence by 38 months, a little over three years in prison. See: United States v. Hutchins, 1:00-cr-00253-TSE-1 (E.D. of Virginia).
Client previously cooperated with the federal government prior to sentencing, but never received a reduction for his cooperation. After negotiating with U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Government agreed to move for a sentence reduction. The firm appeared for a hearing on the case, and argued for the maximum reduction the court would grant. The court granted the defendant relief, ordering that his sentence be reduced 40 months.
Client sought relief from his federal drug sentence in light of Amendment 782 to the federal sentencing guidelines. The court granted the firm’s motion, reducing the client’s sentence 15 months. See: United States v. Mitchell, 2:05-cr-00033-TC (D. of Utah).
Client retained the firm to seek a reduction in sentence for cooperation that she previously provided to federal prosecutors. After contacting the prosecutor and the Chief of the Criminal Division, the prosecution agreed to ask the court for a reduced sentence. The court granted the request, lowering the client’s sentence by 27 months.
Client assisted federal prosecutors in the investigation and prosecution of other individuals. After no reduction in sentence was provided, client hired the firm. The firm reached out to the prosecution and negotiated a resolution that resulted in a two-year reduction to the client’s federal criminal sentence.
Client retained the firm to seek a recommendation from the court that she receive 12-months of halfway house from the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The firm filed a motion requesting the recommendation from the court and the motion was granted.
Client retained firm to seek early termination of federal supervised release. Client was previously convicted of white collar crimes and ordered to serve lengthy federal sentence, three years of supervised release, and to make restitution. Shortly before the completion of one year of supervised release, the firm moved for early termination. The court granted the motion, and the defendant was discharged from supervised release one year to the day after release from federal prison.
Client was accused of punching, kicking and dragging a pregnant woman on the ground. The prosecution argued that these actions caused the alleged victim to have a miscarriage. The range of punishment the defendant could have received was 5-99 years in prison. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the court granted a motion for judgment of acquittal and declared the defendant not guilty.
Client was accused of using a firearm during the course of a robbery and placed on probation. Prosecution moved to revoke probation on the basis that the client had allegedly driven without a license, was not paying his probation fines and fees, and not completing required community service. Those allegations, if proven by the prosecutor, could have resulted in revocation of the client’s probation and a sentence of 5-99 years in prison. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the prosecutor’s motion to revoke probation and the client was allowed to remain on probation.