Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!






Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > FEDERAL PRISON SYSTEM > Federal System News, Events and Legal Issues
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Federal System News, Events and Legal Issues News & Events relating to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Courts, Department of Justice and any legal questions you may have dealing with the Federal system.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-05-2017, 01:10 PM
Curt'swife8 Curt'swife8 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 173
Thanks: 96
Thanked 147 Times in 93 Posts
Default Updates to 924c Charges???

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?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Curt'swife8 For This Useful Post:
fbopnomore (08-05-2017)
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 08-07-2017, 10:37 AM
Zelda50 Zelda50 is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 17,309
Thanks: 1,610
Thanked 8,357 Times in 4,629 Posts
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Zelda50 For This Useful Post:
Curt'swife8 (08-07-2017), fbopnomore (08-07-2017)
  #3  
Old 08-07-2017, 11:44 AM
Curt'swife8 Curt'swife8 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 173
Thanks: 96
Thanked 147 Times in 93 Posts
Default

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
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Curt'swife8 For This Useful Post:
fbopnomore (08-07-2017)
  #4  
Old 08-09-2017, 10:35 PM
nikkipattycake nikkipattycake is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: portland, oregon
Posts: 83
Thanks: 32
Thanked 32 Times in 24 Posts
Default

Is this the same as beckles case?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-10-2017, 10:43 AM
Curt'swife8 Curt'swife8 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 173
Thanks: 96
Thanked 147 Times in 93 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkipattycake View Post
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.

Last edited by Curt'swife8; 08-10-2017 at 10:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Please sign and share: Support amending the unjust 924c "stacking laws". luvnme5 Prison Petitions 2 04-07-2015 06:09 AM
924c and Stacking? Tinare Federal System News, Events and Legal Issues 3 08-12-2013 10:11 AM
Husband threatened w/ attempted murder charges, transfer, street charges babygirlj Prison & Criminal Legal Help! 7 02-03-2012 12:29 PM
Does 18 USC 924c make you automatically camp/RDAp inellegible Rick226 Federal General Prison Talk, Introductions & Chit Chat 5 03-01-2009 01:14 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:47 PM.
Copyright © 2001- 2017 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics