Shane Tuttle retained the Firm to seek a commutation of sentence from the President of the United States. The President has the authority to reduce a federal criminal sentence through a commutation, also known as clemency.
Shane was originally sentenced to 30 years imprisonment in 1995 for possession with intent to distribute cocaine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The Firm prepared a thoughtful and compelling petition for clemency that highlighted the numerous accomplishments Shane made while incarcerated. The petition also illustrated the positive strides Shane made to better his life.
On June 3, 2016, President Barack Obama granted Shane’s clemency petition, reducing his sentence to time served effective October 1, 2016.
Matthew Murphy retained the Firm to assist with the preparation of a petition for commutation of sentence . The President of the United States has the constitutional authority to grant pardons and commutations to persons the President deems worthy of mercy.
Matthew was sentenced in 1997 to 30 years imprisonment for a cocaine conspiracy charge. The Firm prepared a robust, thoughtful petition for clemency highlighting Matthew’s accomplishments and positive change while incarcerated.
On December 18, 2015, President Barack Obama granted Matthew’s petition, reducing his sentence to time served effective April 16, 2016.
The Firm was retained to assist the defendant in defending against six-charges of mail fraud, which if convicted, carried a maximum total sentence of 180-years. The charges were particularly pernicious as the defendant was accused of defrauding homeowners of millions of dollars as part of a mortgage elimination scheme in the Los Angeles area.
After intensive investigation of the case, and prolonged negotiations with the Government, a very favorable plea agreement was reached. The terms of the plea agreement allowed the defendant to plead to an information charging an attempt to make false statements in a bankruptcy proceeding. This capped the defendant’s overall sentencing exposure to no more than ten years in prison. In addition, because of the way the plea was structured, the defendant-who is not a U.S. citizen-was provided an avenue in which to fight deportation.
Under U.S. law, a non-citizen who is convicted of an “aggravated felony” is generally automatically deportable. However, the loss amount for an economic aggravated felony must be $10,000 or more. The plea agreement in the case allowed the defendant to limit the loss amount for the counts of conviction to approximately $3,500, which will enable to defendant to argue against deportation later.
After the defendant plead guilty, the Firm prepared lengthy sentencing memoranda and argued for a sentence that was significantly less than 10 years. The Court found merit in the Firm’s sentencing arguments and imposed a sentence of 70-months. With credit for time served, the defendant could be released in less than two years.
The Firm was hired to seek 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, which declared the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) unconstitutionally vague. The client had been enhanced as a “career offender” under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
The Firm argued that Johnson, while decided in the context of the ACCA, should also apply to the “residual clause” of the career offender provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines. The district judge agreed with the Firm’s arguments, granted the client’s § 2255 motion, and reduced the client’s sentence to 120 months, a 31-month sentence reduction. United States v. McClendon, 6:08-cr-10008-JTM (D. Kansas).
The Firm was retained to seek 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief for an individual who was sentenced as an Armed Career Criminal. The motion was filed after the defendant was previously denied § 2255 relief. The Firm was able to avoid having the new § 2255 motion treated as a “second or successive” 2255 because the first 2255 motion had been improperly re-characterized as a 2255 motion without notice to the defendant.
The Firm’s 2255 motion was filed many months before the Supreme Court decided its seminal decision in Johnson v. United States, but the Firm anticipated the court changing the legal landscape. Accordingly, the Firm asked the court to stay the case until Johnson was decided. After Johnson was handed down, the Firm moved to lift the stay and for an order directing the Government to explain why relief should not be granted. The Government eventually responded, conceding that the client should receive relief. The client was re-sentenced to TIME SERVED and ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED. Hauschulz v. United States 2:08-cr-00091 (D. North Dakota 2015).
The Firm was hired to seek 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief for the Client. The Client plead guilty upon the advice of counsel, but her original attorney wrongly advised her to stipulate to a sentencing enhancement that was not applicable. The Client had been “double counted” for the same conduct. In other words, she received an enhanced sentence for the same conduct twice.
The Court agreed with the Firm’s arguments and granted § 2255 relief, finding the Client’s former attorney ineffective. The Client’s sentence was vacated and the case scheduled for re-sentencing.
The Firm filed a suit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, alleging that the Government was unlawfully refusing to search for records related to immunity agreements that it had offered to the client. The Government refused to search for the records on the basis that the search was exempt from disclosure.
The district court rejected the Department of Justice’s categorical refusal to search for responsive records. The court denied the DOJ’s motion for summary judgment and ordered the Government to search for records responsive to the request. Wright v. Department of Justice, 14-558 (D.D.C. 2015).
Client hired the Firm to appeal the denial of his pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Firm put together a compelling brief that articulated why the lower’ courts handling of the client’s § 2255 was erroneous. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the Firm’s arguments, reversed the lower court’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Zakarian v. United States, No. 14-3928 (6th Cir. 2016).
Client retained the Firm to assist in obtaining an order recommending that he be granted a nunc pro tunc designation by the Bureau of Prisons.
The client was charged for the same crimes by the state and the federal government. Before the client was officially charged by the state, he was sentenced in federal court. There was no mention of the pending state charges by the defense, prosecution, or the court during the federal proceedings.
Client hired the firm to seek application of time spent in state custody towards his federal sentence.
The Firm prepared a well-written motion seeking a recommendation from the original sentencing judge that the Bureau of Prisons grant the client this time towards his federal sentence.
The sentencing judge granted the motion ONE DAY after it was filed.
A copy of the Court’s order was provided to the Bureau of Prisons and the Client was IMMEDIATELY RELEASED.
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.
Client’s direct appeal was dismissed due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Firm filed a Motion to Recall the Mandate with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit arguing that the Client’s appeal should be reinstated because it had been previously dismissed due to attorney error. Although motions to recall the mandate are rarely granted, the Fifth Circuit granted the Firm’s motion and reinstated the Client’s direct appeal over a year after it had been dismissed.
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 hired the Firm to seek a reduction in sentence based on “drugs minus two,” formally known as Amendment 782 to the federal sentencing guidelines. Defendant was originally sentenced to 360 months imprisonment. After submitting a compelling motion that outlined why relief should be afforded, the court granted the Firm’s motion and reduced the client’s sentence to 292 months, a 68-month reduction.
The Client retained the Firm to seek relief based on Amendment 782 to the federal sentencing guidelines, also known as “drugs minus two.” In considering whether to grant or deny relief, courts consider a variety of statutory factors, conduct while in prison, and what rehabilitation has been completed since sentencing.
The Firm submitted a compelling motion on the Client’s behalf. The Government opposed relief because the Client had been originally sentenced at the top of his Guideline range, among other reasons. The Firm fought back relentlessly, and the Court granted the motion. The Client’s sentenced was reduced to the bottom of his guideline range–a 50-month reduction.
Client retained the Firm to seek a reduction in sentence based on Amendment 782 to the federal sentencing guidelines. Amendment 782 reduced federal drug sentences by two levels for most drug offenders. However, relief based on the amendment is discretionary and based on a variety of statutory factors related to the defendant’s conviction, rehabilitation since sentencing, and conduct while in prison. The Firm presented a compelling request for relief, highlighting the client’s efforts to turn his life around and his plans for the future upon release. The court granted the Firm’s motion reducing the client’s sentence 42-months.
The Firm represented the client with seeking “drugs minus two” relief, formally known as Amendment 782 to the federal sentencing guidelines. The Firm submitted a polished motion to the court indicating the diligence the client demonstrated in pursuing education and vocational skills, as well as his participation in drug rehabilitation courses. The court granted motion, reducing the client’s sentence by almost two years.
The client hired the Firm to seek a sentence reduction. The Firm pursued relief based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The Firm presented a compelling case to the court, indicating the client’s change in attitude and commitment to reforming himself. Upon reviewing the Firm’s motion that outlined the educational and rehabilitation efforts of the client, the judge reduced the client’s sentence by 42 months.
The Firm petitioned the court for a recommendation in favor of maximum halfway house placement. The Firm highlighted the client’s aspirations to pursue higher education and desire to support his family while reintegrating into society. The court granted the motion, recommending that the Bureau of Prisons afford the defendant 12-months of halfway house time.
The client retained the Firm for assistance with a reduction in sentence. The Firm prepared a motion outlining the client’s active rehabilitation efforts, including participation in a drug treatment program. Based on the Firm’s efforts, the client received a 24-month reduction in sentence based on Amendment 782 to the federal sentencing guidelines.
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.
The client hired the Firm to seek relief pursuant to Amendment 782. The firm outlined Client’s dedication to reforming her life by earning her GED, pursuing vocational skills, and positive attitude and behavior while in prison. The Firm successfully petitioned the court to reduce Client’s sentence by 60 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).
The client retained the Firm to seek a two-level reduction, formally known as Amendment 782 to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Client was originally sentenced to 65 months in prison. The Firm presented compelling evidence of the client’s commitment to reforming and improving himself through education and rehabilitation. The court granted the Firm’s motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), and the client’s sentence was reduced to 53 months.
The client sought representation from the Firm for assistance with Amendment 782 in hopes to reduce his original sentence of 180 months. The Firm showcased the client’s future plans and goals, including his hopes to improve the lives of others. The Government did not oppose the motion, but argued for a lesser reduction. The court granted the client the maximum relief possible and reduced the client’s sentence by 45 months.
The client retained the Firm for help assist with filing a motion for the 2 level reduction. The court reduced his sentence by a remarkable 57 months after the firm made a compelling motion outlining the client’s character and rehabilitation.
Client sought relief from his federal drugs sentence in light of Amendment 782. The Firm showed the client’s willingness to accept responsibility for his actions and reform his character by rehabilitating himself. The court granted the motion and reduced the client’s sentence by 37 months.
Client sought the Firm’s assistance in filing a motion for reduction in sentence in light of Amendment 782. The firm put forth a compelling case for reduction in sentence, highlighting the client’s good behavior and dedication to utilizing the BOP’s educational and character building programs.
The client had a sentence greater than the sentencing guideline range. The Firm presented a polished motion outlining why the client deserves a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the federal sentencing guidelines. The Firm and the Government agreed to a 43-month reduction which was granted by the court.
Client retained the Firm to seek relief based on Amendment 782. The Government claimed that no reduction was appropriate based on post-sentencing conduct. The Firm argued against the Government’s opposition and the court granted the client a 30-month reduction in sentence.
Client had an enhancement under 21 U.S.C. and signed a binding 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. The firm filed a motion to reduce his sentence in light of Amendment 782 to the guidelines. The court granted the motion and reduced his sentence by 38 months.
Client retained the Firm to file for a reduction based on “drugs minus two.” The motion was denied in U.S. District Court. The firm appealed the decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After the appeal was filed, the court, under its own motion, granted the client a 28-month reduction.
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.