Defendant Cannot Benefit on Direct Appeal from Guideline Amendment that Became Effective after His Sentencing if Amendment Is Substantive rather than Clarifying (unless the Commission Determines that the Amendment Should Have Retroactive Effect under § 1B1.10)

In United States v. Miguel Jesurum, No. 14-4464-cr (2d Cir. April 14, 2016), the Court (op. by Pooler, joined by Kearse and Sack) rejects appellant’s argument that (1) the sentencing court erred in finding that the offense “involved more than 250 victims,” which led to a 6-level enhancement under the 2014 version of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C); and (2) he should receive the benefit of a 2015 amendment to the same Guideline, which became effective after his sentencing and which now calls for the same enhancement only where the offense “resulted in substantial financial hardship to five or more victims.”

The first argument fails under the plain language of Commentary to the Guideline. Application …

Lawyers in both districts should be aware of a change in ICE detainer policy.  The old so-called “detainer” form (1-247) is being retired and replaced with three different forms.  The change in policy is summarized here on the ICE website.

One of the new forms, the I-247N, is a request for voluntary notification of the impending release of a “suspected priority alien”, but it does not request or authorize the continued detention of  individuals beyond the point they otherwise would be released.  The form says on its face that it does not request or authorize detention.  It also says on its face that it should not impact decisions about bail, release, or other matters.  Despite these changes, prosecutors and agents may refer to the I-247N as a “detainer” and may argue at a bail hearing that it authorizes your client’s detention.

In light of the change in ICE policy …

The Second Circuit today issued a summary order affirming the denial of a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines.  In United States v. Johnson, 15-2051-cr, the Court held that because Mr. Johnson’s guideline range remained 360-life even after Amendment 782, the District Court correctly concluded he was ineligible for a Section 3582(c)(2) reduction.  Mr. Johnson’s other arguments related to possible procedural errors in the calculation of his base offense level at his original sentencing were not proper on a motion for a sentence reduction.…

In a summary order, the Court declined to reach as plain error whether Aggravated Identity Theft, under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(c)(5), requires the government to prove that the individuals did not consent to the unlawful use of their identities. The majority of circuits to consider the issue have rejected the argument. It is an open question in the Second Circuit.

-Philip Weinstein

 …