CRIMINAL APPEALS
Federal Criminal Appeal Lawyer
WILLIAM MALLORY KENT

  

1932 Perry Place
Jacksonville, Florida 32207-3443
904-398-8000 Telephone

904-662-4419 Cellphone 
904-348-3124 Fax
Email kent@williamkent.com  

LEGAL NEWS OF NOTE

Child Pornography Guidelines Unreasonable - see note of new cases

New Crack Cocaine Law and Guidelines - August 2010 - see note of new law here

Crack Cocaine Federal Sentencing to Change Again

March 17, 2010 the United States Senate Passed S. 1789, the "Fair Sentencing Act," which will reduce the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity.  The Senate Bill had originally abolished the disparity but was amended leaving a 1:18 disparity.  Click here for a copy of the Senate Bill. The bill is silent on retroactivity but directs the Sentencing Commission to make conforming changes to the guidelines.  The Sentencing Commission could make the change retroactive, but cannot retroactively reduce a minimum mandatory sentence. The related House bill proposes to abolish the disparity completely.  Click here for a copy of H.R. 265. 

***

June 25, 2009 - Ninth Circuit Permits Rule 60(b) Use Under Gonzalez in Exceptional Circumstances When 2254 is Otherwise Procedurally Barred

A substantive change in the law can be a basis for granting a motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), to overturn a final judgment denying habeas corpus relief, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held June 25. In Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 77 CrL 359 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court expressed concerns about the use of Rule 60(b) to skirt the provision of the federal habeas statute that generally bars retroactive application of changes in the law. The Ninth Circuit, however, interpreted the opinion in Gonzalez as adopting a “case-by-case approach, rather than a per se rule.” It went on to explain why the change in the law at issue in this case established the “extraordinary circumstance” that the Gonzalez court found was missing in that case. (Phelps v. Alameida, 9th Cir., No. 07-15167, 6/25/09)

Warning - Persons who have been convicted of ordinary misdemeanor battery, even if not charged as a "domestic battery," if in fact it was a domestic battery, are subject to federal felony prosecution and ten years imprisonment for possession of a firearm under new Supreme Court decision, United States v. Hayes, February 24, 2009.

Just Released: Important New Report on the Crisis in the National Public Defender System Issued by the Constitution Project - Justice Denied

Return to Home Page - The Law Office of William Mallory Kent