The First Step Act makes important changes to several federal drug and gun statutes. The Act reduces mandatory minimum enhancements for some drug defendants and also changes the definition of these enhancements.  It also modifies the existing federal safety valve, broadening its application to more drug defendants; changes the “stacking” penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and retroactively applies the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.

Explore the recent amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that took effect on November 1, 2023, in particular those that permit for a reduction in sentence. They will offer a comprehensive overview of the these amendments, the government’s latest position on them, and practice tips on making the most of them for your clients.

The National Association of Defense Lawyers (NACDL) respectfully submits the following comments on these important proposed amendments.

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, FAMM, and Federal Public Defenders and Community Defenders for the Judicial Districts of the Third Circuit in Support of Appellant and Reversal

Elizabeth Blackwood, NACDL’s Counsel & Project Director, First Step Act Resource Center, and Alison Guernsey, Clinical Professor of Law, Iowa College of Law provide an overview of PATTERN and Earned Time Credits, explain how you can utilize these tools to benefit your client, and discuss how to proceed if the BOP fails to provide the time credits your client has earned.

The United States Sentencing Commission updated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, the policy statement that governs federal reduction-in-sentence motions filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The legal hook for a reduction-in-sentence motion is identifying one or more “extraordinary and compelling” reasons that warrant relief. The authors provide tips for litigating § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions – both the extraordinary and compelling prong and the § 3553(a) prong.

The undersigned groups are pleased to see that the U.S. Sentencing Commission has made the comparing of sentences imposed in cases disposed of through trial versus plea one of its priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2024. As groups with significant experience examining the trial versus plea sentencing disparity, we respectfully request a meeting with Commissioners or staff or both who are working on this important issue.

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Due Process Institute in Support of the Defendant Appellant

The Sentencing Guidelines provide for an increase in the offense level for most fraud or theft offenses based on the amount of “loss” determined by the court. Loss is not defined in the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the commentary defines loss as “the greater of actual loss or intended loss.” Megan Siddall explores a new argument that loss should be limited to actual loss – and not intended loss – in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kisor v. Wilkie.

The National Association of Defense Lawyers (NACDL) respectfully submits the following comments on the Commission’s possible policy priorities for the amendment cycle ending May 1, 2024.

Co-Sponsored by Georgetown University Law Center’s American Criminal Law Review

The landscape of sentencing policy has shifted in recent years, with federal and state lawmakers advocating fewer draconian penalties and beginning to scale back certain sentences. It is clear that the United States stands at a critical juncture for sentencing reform. This symposium is designed to equip practitioners and policy advocates with the latest strategies and research to seize the moment and foster more rational and humane policies.

NACDL hereby responds to the Commission’s request for comment on the retroactive application of Part A of the 2023 Criminal History Amendment which limits, and, in some cases, eliminates status points under USSG § 4A1.1(d), and Part B, Subpart 1 of this year’s Criminal History Amendment, which amends USSG § 4C1.1 to provide for a two-level downward adjustment for “zero-point offenders.” NACDL endorses retroactive application for both provisions without limitation.

Facing Sentencing Guidelines Above Zone C

How can defense counsel utilize a provision within the Criminal Code, implemented by the Sentencing Guidelines, that allows for a split sentence in Zone D cases through the post-imprisonment condition of supervised release? Joseph A. DeMaria and Marissa Koblitz Kingman explain how to argue for the Zone D split sentence.

Long underused and unfairly applied by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, federal compassionate release is seeing a revival under the First Step Act. That law not only corrected many of the flaws in the way the BOP handled compassionate release requests, but allows prisoners direct access to the courts. The new law clarifies the broad range of circumstances related to age, illness, and family circumstances that might trigger eligibility for relief and further opens up exciting new opportunities to seek reconsideration of sentences that are no longer appropriate for a variety of other reasons.

NACDL is pleased to see the U.S. Sentencing Commission proposing amendments the Sentencing Guidelines that seek to address the unfair practice of allowing acquitted conduct to be considered as relevant conduct under Sentencing Guideline Section 1B1.3.