District Court, District of Columbia — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
United States v. Baylor
District Court, District of Columbia · 2020-10-08
In United States v. Baylor, the defendant, serving a 25-month federal prison sentence for a non-violent offense, filed a third emergency motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) due to her chronic kidney disease and hypertension, which heighten her risk of severe illness from COVID-19. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion, reducing her sentence to time served and adding a three-month period of home detention as a condition of supervised release. The court reasoned that the emergence of COVID-19 cases at her facility, combined with evidence of inadequate medical management by the Bureau of Prisons, established extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, and that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors supported the reduction given her time served, lack of danger to the community, and model inmate status.
criminal law
United States v. Price
District Court, District of Columbia · 2020-10-06
In United States v. Price, the defendant, convicted after a 2008 jury trial of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of PCP and sentenced to a mandatory life term plus supervised release based on prior drug convictions, filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the motion and reduced the sentence to time served, with an added three-month period of home detention as a condition of supervised release. The court found extraordinary and compelling reasons for the reduction, including the defendant's age and health factors heightening COVID-19 risks, the First Step Act's reduction of the applicable mandatory minimum to 15 years, the non-violent nature of the offense, the defendant's good prison record and rehabilitation efforts, and unwarranted sentencing disparities with more culpable co-defendants. The court also determined that the defendant was not a danger to the community and that further incarceration would not serve the purposes of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
criminal law
United States v. Suggs
District Court, District of Columbia · 2020-09-29
The case United States v. Suggs was a federal criminal matter on appeal. The court affirmed the district court's ruling by reference to prior decisions including United States v. Powell, United States v. Glover, United States v. Brown, United States v. Dunlap, and United States v. Croft. Its core reasoning rested on the application of established precedent to the facts and legal questions presented in the appeal.
criminal law
United States v. Harrison
District Court, District of Columbia · 2020-09-24
In United States v. Harrison, defendant Ronald Harrison, who had pleaded guilty in 2012 to unlawful distribution of cocaine and was serving a 180-month sentence, filed an emergency motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) due to a medical condition that increased his risk of severe complications from COVID-19. The court granted the motion, reducing his sentence to time served with a three-month period of home detention as a condition of supervised release. It found that Harrison had exhausted administrative remedies and that extraordinary and compelling reasons existed based on his health, as conceded by the government. After weighing the § 3553(a) factors, the court concluded a reduction was warranted because Harrison's offense and history involved no violence, he had completed educational programs and maintained good conduct in prison, and release would better allow him to manage COVID-19 risks while still serving the goals of sentencing.
criminal lawhealthcare
Democracy Partners, LLC v. Project Veritas Action Fund
District Court, District of Columbia · 2020-08-27
This case involves a lawsuit by Democracy Partners and related plaintiffs against Project Veritas Action Fund and others, stemming from undercover operations that produced videos leading to contract cancellations by groups like AFSCME. Defendants sought reconsideration of the court's partial denial of summary judgment on First Amendment and causation issues related to certain damages, arguing that the court had misinterpreted deposition testimony from AFSCME witness Scott Frey about reasons for canceling a contract with Strategic Consulting. The court reviewed the full context of Frey's statements, including his testimony that plaintiffs had allowed their offices to be infiltrated by a Project Veritas operative, and concluded that a plausible interpretation supported plaintiffs' view of causation. Even without the disputed excerpts, the court found sufficient evidence of a material factual dispute regarding whether defendants' non-expressive conduct was a substantial factor in the damages. The motion for reconsideration was therefore denied.
free speechprocedure
Samma v. U.S. Department of Defense
District Court, District of Columbia · 2020-08-25
In Samma v. U.S. Department of Defense, noncitizen service members challenged a 2017 DOD policy that imposed minimum duration and type-of-service requirements before they could obtain a Certification of Honorable Service (Form N-426) required to pursue expedited naturalization under 8 U.S.C. § 1440. The plaintiffs brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act alleging that the policy was arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with law, in excess of statutory authority, and resulted in unlawfully withheld agency action. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and vacated the minimum service requirements. The court reasoned that the statute limits DOD to a ministerial role of certifying honorable service based solely on an individual's past service record and does not authorize additional preconditions for certification.
immigrationfederal power