Updates to 924c Charges???

[Curt'swife8]

I am curious if anyone has heard anything with regards to their motion for relief in sentencing with 924c charges. I, recently, noticed some dialogue on FedCure about the JOHNSON v USA, Jun 26, 2015 SUPREME COURT RULING, but my husband and I haven't heard anything regarding his motion on 924c charges. Has anyone here (or their loved ones) had success? Failure?

[Zelda50]

I don't know what 924(c) charges are - but I know of someone in the Portland, Oregon district who was released early under Johnson v. USA. His attorney was Steve Sady of the Federal Public Defenders Office. He filed the paperwork and the prosecutor ended up stipulating to the application of the law. The Order set his release out 10 days so the prison (and inmate) could plan the release. This was a case where the inmate would be released immediately once the law was applied.

[Curt'swife8]

Johnson VS. USA ruled that the residual clause with regards to enhancements in Armed Career Criminal sentencing was too vague and hence unconstitutional. The same residual clause exists with gun charge enhancements (924c). My husband was advised to file a motion to see if the ruling can be applied to 924c charges as well. (Or something like that...) Thank you for responding. I am looking forward to that same 10-day notification! LOL

[nikkipattycake]

Is this the same as beckles case?

[Curt'swife8]

Originally Posted by nikkipattycake

Is this the same as beckles case?

From what I can tell, Beckles was trying to argue his sentencing fell under the same ruling as the ACCA. He did not receive 924c enhancements, nor did he receive ACCA enhancements; he was trying to argue that sentencing him as a violent offender with the sentencing guidelines was similar to those enhancements. They disagreed. The "enhancements" are separate consecutive sentences ADDED TO the sentences for whatever violent offense. For example, someone could receive 120 months for armed robbery, which is elevated with sentencing guidelines because it is armed vs. unarmed. They, then, can get 60 months for the first gun offense and 240 months for each additional gun offense (924c charges)... all of these being stacked on top of one another even though the person already received a higher sentencing because it was "armed".

The Supreme Court ruled that these enhancements were unconstitutional for ACCA because that was the case they were deciding at the time, but the same "residual clause" is present in 924c charges. We are still waiting to hear the Circuits decision as to whether it will get applied to both.

[Hurley123]

Originally Posted by Curt'swife8

From what I can tell, Beckles was trying to argue his sentencing fell under the same ruling as the ACCA. He did not receive 924c enhancements, nor did he receive ACCA enhancements; he was trying to argue that sentencing him as a violent offender with the sentencing guidelines was similar to those enhancements. They disagreed. The "enhancements" are separate consecutive sentences ADDED TO the sentences for whatever violent offense. For example, someone could receive 120 months for armed robbery, which is elevated with sentencing guidelines because it is armed vs. unarmed. They, then, can get 60 months for the first gun offense and 240 months for each additional gun offense (924c charges)... all of these being stacked on top of one another even though the person already received a higher sentencing because it was "armed".

The Supreme Court ruled that these enhancements were unconstitutional for ACCA because that was the case they were deciding at the time, but the same "residual clause" is present in 924c charges. We are still waiting to hear the Circuits decision as to whether it will get applied to both.

When are you expecting to hear any news on this 924c charges?? This seems to be the fly in the ointment for my man.

[Curt'swife8]

Originally Posted by Hurley123

When are you expecting to hear any news on this 924c charges?? This seems to be the fly in the ointment for my man.

So... we never heard back from his lawyer with regards to his 2255. I did my own search and found that they did rule back in APRIL! Their ruling was basically that the Johnson ruling didn't specifically find 924c charges unconstitutional and denied allowance for relief with a 2255. This wasn't a big surprise because we knew that Johnson didn't specifically address 924c charges. We were just hoping the Circuit would connect 924c and ACCA. They didn't. Now, we have to wait for 924c charges and or "violent criminal" language to be ruled on specifically in the Supreme Court.

My husband was approached by someone with whom he never really has contact and he brought up this topic. The guy told him that he received a letter from his lawyer. The letter stated that they are waiting for a ruling from the Supreme Court and there is a case being heard on October 2. 15-1498 SESSIONS, ATT’Y GEN. V. DIMAYA This isn't a 924c case, but it will address the "violent criminal" language.

We are, obviously, hoping for the best! We are praying hard for some reasonable thinking on October 2nd and during deliberations! We could use all the extra positive thoughts and prayers from others too!

[NewLeaf15]

Originally Posted by Curt'swife8

So... we never heard back from his lawyer with regards to his 2255. I did my own search and found that they did rule back in APRIL! Their ruling was basically that the Johnson ruling didn't specifically find 924c charges unconstitutional and denied allowance for relief with a 2255. This wasn't a big surprise because we knew that Johnson didn't specifically address 924c charges. We were just hoping the Circuit would connect 924c and ACCA. They didn't. Now, we have to wait for 924c charges and or "violent criminal" language to be ruled on specifically in the Supreme Court.

My husband was approached by someone with whom he never really has contact and he brought up this topic. The guy told him that he received a letter from his lawyer. The letter stated that they are waiting for a ruling from the Supreme Court and there is a case being heard on October 2. 15-1498 SESSIONS, ATT’Y GEN. V. DIMAYA This isn't a 924c case, but it will address the "violent criminal" language.

We are, obviously, hoping for the best! We are praying hard for some reasonable thinking on October 2nd and during deliberations! We could use all the extra positive thoughts and prayers from others too!

My boyfriend's 2255 motion was denied under the Johnson law. The lawyer told me he was sentenced under drug violations with a gun charge attached to it. He said it was denied by the courts because Johnson doesn't have anything to do with 924(c).