Court Could Consider Benefits of Plea Bargain When Resolving Compassionate Release Request

US v. Bond: After a series of robberies in 2015, Bond was charged with multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery that would have resulted in an advisory Guideline range of more than 1000 months in prison. He wound up pleading guilty to two counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and was sentenced to 84 months on one and 300 months on the other as the result of the “stacking” providing then in force. Ultimately, Bond moved for compassionate release based on the First Step Act’s changes to the stacking provisions. While the district court agreed that the change in the law constituted “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for relief, it ultimately denied Bond’s motion after weighing the relevant sentencing factors. One of those factors was that the district court would not “disregard the dismissed counts and the benefits” Bond got from the plea agreement, concluding that Bond got “the exact sentence bargained for.”

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Bond’s motion for compassionate release. The court rejected Bond’s argument that the district court erred by considering the plea agreement amongst the applicable sentencing factors. It also rejected Bond’s attempts to rely on the First Step Act’s change in the stacking provisions, noting that “timing matters” and that his sentence “was properly calculated when imposed.” At any rate, the ultimate issue in compassionate release was not whether the original sentence was correct, but whether the sentencing factors counseled for or against a reduction given new, extraordinary circumstances.

Equitable Tolling Not Available for 1-Year Time Limit Under Rule 60(b)

US v. Williams: In 2004, Williams was convicted on multiple counts related to drug trafficking and was sentence to life (plus 30 years) in prison. In 2008, he filed a 2255 motion challenging his convictions, which was denied in 2012. In 2016, he filed a motion under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure arguing that the Government had misrepresented several things during his 2255 proceedings and “prevented him from fully and fairly presenting his case.” The district court ultimately denied the motion, concluding that it was outside the 1-year time limit, that Williams was not entitled to equitable tolling, and that his motion argument failed on the merits.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Williams’ Rule 60(b) motion. The court ultimately decided it could not resolve whether the 1-year time limited had been equitably told or the merits of Williams’ arguments because, the court concluded, equitable tolling is not applicable to Rule 60(b) motions. While the 1-year time limit was not jurisdictional, it was a mandatory claim processing rule and the court therefore was left “without discretion to extent Rule 60(b)’s one-year time limit for equitable reasons, whatever their merit.”

Throwing Gun Away During Flight Insufficient to Support “Reckless Endangerment” Enhancement

US v. Shivers: In 2019, Shivers robbed a convenience store at gunpoint. Unbeknownst to him, an off-duty police officer was working security at the store and called the police, who confronted Shivers with a perimeter when he left the street. Shivers ran, at which point “one officer saw Shivers discard a revolver in the street.” Shivers was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery and brandishing a firearm. At sentencing, he was assessed a two-level increase for reckless endangerment during his flight from the police. The district court agreed that “something more” than simple flight was required and was present in this case because Shivers had to reach for the gun in order to dispose of it, which could have led an officer to opening fire, and that when the gun was thrown it could have accidentally discharged and harmed someone (including, perhaps, Shivers himself). The district court imposed a sentence of 114 months, seven months below the applicable advisory Guideline range.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit concluded both that the district court’s application of the enhancement was erroneous and that the error was not harmless. After noting that the district court erred by considering risks created to Shivers himself (the enhancement requires risk to “another person”), the court concluded that there was no evidence in the record to support the district court’s conclusions about risks created by Shivers’ conduct. There was no evidence that he pulled the gun out of his pocket, rather than just holding it in his hand, and no evidence that there was a “substantial risk of the firearm discharging when it hit the ground.” As to harmless error, the court held that although the advisory Guideline range had not been a “significant factor” in the sentence imposed there was no evidence that the range was irrelevant.

Congrats to the Defender office in Western NC on the win!