NACDL - Search: *

Landing Page

Compassionate Release Clearinghouse

The Compassionate Release Clearinghouse is a collaborative pro bono effort between FAMM and NACDL connecting federal prisoners with grounds for compassionate release with pro bono counsel.

Brief

Template Motions for (b)(6)/Unusually Long Sentence Cases by Circuit

In the fall of 2023, the Federal Defenders provided the template motions below for (b)(6)/unusually long sentences cases in circuits with case law that previously did not allow motions based on "changes in the law." These templates are specific to the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 11th Circuits. These templates are meant to be the starting place for your motion. Based on your district and your judge, you may choose to add to these motions or to remove certain sections.

Content Page

2023 Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines

"Reader Friendly" Verision of 2023 Adopted Amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines; Includes "Reasons for Amendment."

Brief

String Cite: Mandatory Life due to § 851s [Courtesy of the Federal Defenders; last updated 2/1/2021]

summary

Brief

Declaration of Homer Venters in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification

Homer Venters, M.D., former Deputy Dir. New York City Jail Correctional Health Service (March 24, 2020)

Fraihat v. ICE, No. 5:19cv1546 (C.D. CA)

Brief

Consideration of Legal Errors/Changes in Granting CR [Courtesy of the Federal Defenders; last updat

Some of the cases took legal errors/changes into account ONLY in evaluating the 3553(a) factors – not in deciding whether the client presented E&C reasons for a reduction. Those cases are marked in red.

Content Page

So, Your Client Already Filed a Pro Se Motion – Now What? (July 23,2020)

Learn when to supplement, when to seek a stay, and when to start over. Seasoned criminal defense lawyers Justine Harris and JaneAnne Murray will present options and arguments. They will walk us through when to seek an extension, whether to supplement, and how to reply if the government has already become involved. They will also us help evaluate orders denying pro se motions (not all denials are created equal) and will help answer a common question: should you move to reconsider?

Brief

String Cite: 924(c) as ECR [Courtesy of the Federal Defenders; last updated 1/4/2021]

summary

Content Page

Test

United States v. McCauley,

Content Page

Combatting the Substantiation Requirement

Redacted substantiation section from a b4 compassionate release/RIS motion; note that this example focuses on the civil class action lawsuit against FCI Dublin (which is only available to incarcerated individuals still housed at FCI Dublin)

Another redacted substantiation section from a b4 compassionate release/RIS motion; this client was not part of the civil class action lawsuit against FCI Dublin, and was instead pursuing their own FTCA lawsuit.

Content Page

BOP Contact Info

BOP Contact Information Based on BOP Facility (Nov. 2023)

Regional Counsel Contact Information (Nov. 2023)

Note, if any of the contact information changes, please let resource counsel know (crresource@nacd.org). BOP personnel changes often, but BOP does not let us know. The best way to find out personnel changes is from our attorneys.

Content Page

Template Replies for (b)(6)/Unusually Long Sentence Cases

Template Reply Brief on b6 validity- from Federal Defenders (Nov. 2023)

For b6 cases focusing on First Step Act Changes (sections 401 and 403).
Initially drafted for a case in a district within the Eleventh Circuit. Sections are highlighted where non-Eleventh Circuit attorneys will want to add their own circuit law; fortunately, there is not much law to add as the government’s argument is not really circuit-specific, so the reply is not really circuit-specific either.
The reply has highlighted references to section 401 of the First Step Act; if your case is a 403 case, you’ll need to swap that out.
Also, there is a footnote highlighted that references an argument that we have seen in just one case so far (related to exhaustion); the government’s responses in other cases have not included this argument, so we don’t know yet whether it will be repeated elsewhere.
This is ONLY the validity argument! Don’t forget to add good material about your client and their case!

Redacted reply from district in 6th Circuit - from Federal Defenders (b5 and b6 arguments) (Nov. 16, 2023)

This reply includes a section about how Sixth Circuit law (McCall) does not foreclose the validity of 1B1.13(b)(6). This section could be modified for people in other circuits with similar pre-amendment caselaw (i.e. CA3, CA5, CA7, CA8, CA11, and DC).
Here the (b)(5) argument precedes the (b)(6) argument, which is a good strategy as the government is not claiming that b5 is not facially invalid. If, the client can get a win on that the b5 ground, or on both b5 and b6 grounds, it could make that win more secure. Similarly, if you have health claims/family-based claims, etc., you’ll want to elevate those.

Content Page

Template Motions for (b)(6)/Unusually Long Sentence Cases by Circuit

In the fall of 2023, the Federal Defenders provided the template motions below for (b)(6)/unusually long sentences cases in circuits with case law that previously did not allow motions based on “changes in the law.” These templates are specific to the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 11th Circuits. These templates are meant to be the starting place for your motion. Based on your district and your judge, you may choose to add to these motions or to remove certain sections.