Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Judge Martin rocks

She is so great.  Check out her concurrence today in U.S. v. Robinson:

I agree that Troy Robinson cannot benefit from Johnson v. United States, 576
U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), because his sentence is valid even without the
residual clause. I write separately to note that Mr. Robinson is one of dozens of
prisoners who has tried to file similar applications based on Johnson. Prior to
yesterday’s decision in Welch v. United States, No. 15-6418, 2016 WL 1551144
(Apr. 18, 2016), all these applicants were turned away from our Court not because
Johnson wouldn’t benefit them but because our Court held that Johnson could not
apply in these cases. Some of those who filed applications in other courts have
already been freed because they were serving an unconstitutional prison sentence.
As best I can tell, all the prisoners we turned away may only have until June 26,
2016, to refile applications based on Johnson. See Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S.
353, 359, 125 S. Ct. 2478, 2482–83 (2005).
Although I have not taken the time to investigate the merits of these cases,
below is a list of every case I know of in which this court denied an application from
a prisoner seeking to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition based on
Johnson. I share this list in the hope that these prisoners, who filed their applications without a lawyer’s help, may now know to refile their applications. I
have separated out the cases that arise under the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) and the cases that arise under the identical language in United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.2 (which includes cases for which the
guidelines were mandatory together with those for which the guidelines were
advisory). I have also listed the district court in which each sentence was imposed,
to the extent Federal Public Defender and U.S. Attorney offices are monitoring these cases.
She then goes on to list 110 cases.  


Anonymous said...

That is very cool.


The Captain Reports:

WASHINGTON — Sen. Marco Rubio continues to block a South Florida judicial nominee he recommended to the White House and has likely killed her chances of being confirmed.

He refuses to say why.

On Wednesday, the Judiciary Committee takes up five nominees and Mary Barzee Flores is not among them. Rubio through a spokesman declined to explain why he has not submitted a so-called blue slip for Barzee Flores, whom Rubio and Sen. Bill Nelson jointly recommended for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District.

"I have spoken with Rubio and he said he's not going to return the blue slip," Nelson told the Tampa Bay Times.

Full story is here:

Cap Out ...

Anonymous said...

This is great. It is because of judges like this that we can continue to maintain a free society.