Wednesday, February 4, 2015

White Collar United States Sentencing Commission Changes


  Newer, Lower Sentencing Commission Changes Published

 

By Derek Gilna

 

            The Sentencing Commission changes for 2015 are finally starting to come into focus.  As should be obvious, the Sentencing Commission has been the primary vehicle for change and reform of sentencing for the past several years, as Congress has struggled to properly address the issue.  As of now, here NO sentencing reform bills set for a vote in either house of Congress.

            According to the Sentencing Commission, changes will be proposed to the following sections: 4A1.2, relating to Computing Criminal History; 1B1.3, changing the factors for relevant conduct; a revision for the financial loss amounts (of great benefit to white-collar defendants; 3B1.2, reforming the mitigating role definition to provide for a reduction who people who perform “limited functions in criminal activity;” and an amendment to 2B1.1, revising certain sections of the fraud crimes.

 NONE of these changes are expected to increase any sentencing, only reduce them (There are, however, some technical increases for stock market fraud).  It is expected that these sentencing reductions will also be given retroactivity, as has occurred with past sentencing revisions.  The changes are up for public comment until March 15, 2015, at which time the Commission will vote on these changes and formally present them to Congress.  Congress has NEVER rejected any changes in sentencing proposed by the Commission.

While these changes still pending, we know that there are many other avenues for relief available to you, depending upon your factual circumstances.  You need a strong advocate for your rights.  This past week I was in Washington D.C. district court on a 2255 habeas case, where the client was granted an evidentiary hearing based upon my allegations of inadequate representation of counsel. The hearing was hotly contested and no decision has been given yet.

 I am strongly committed to all defendants, even those already convicted, to get justice based upon their attorney’s failure to properly represent them.  It is always an eye-opener to see how many defense attorneys seem to be more concerned about their relationship with the Government than their duty to their clients and end up providing constitutionally inadequate representation of counsel.

These and all such cases are difficult and very fact dependent. However, if you are interested in seeking experienced legal advice or legal services, your choice is clear. I am willing to go into battle for you, and if you are ready for the challenge, so am I.