Client Successes, Favorable Results and Testimonials
The Law Office of Jeremy Gordon has received numerous positive outcomes since our inception. Read some of our clients’ testimonials below.
FAVORABLE CASE RESULTS:
Rule 35 (Federal Cooperation ) Motions
** Our client hired us 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.
** Our client retained us 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.
** Our client assisted federal prosecutors in the investigation and prosecution of other individuals. After no reduction in sentence was provided, our client hired us, and we reached out to the prosecution and negotiated a resolution that resulted in a two-year reduction to the client’s federal criminal sentence.
2255 (Ineffective Assistance of Counsel) Motions
** 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.
**Our client hired us to appeal the denial of his pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. We 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.
** 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.
Avoiding Probation Revocation
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the prosecutor’s motion to revoke probation and our client was allowed to remain on probation.
Amendment 782 (Career Offender/Drug) Motions
** Our client hired us 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.”
** Our Client retained us 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.
** Our client retained us 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.