What Is All This Holloway Stuff About?
Then U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Loretta Lynch, agreed to dismiss two of the 924(c) convictions which allowed the Court to refashion the sentence in the case to a total of 30 years. Holloway went home. You can read more in this opinion. United States v. Holloway, 68 F. Supp. 3d 310 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).
A few other courts have agreed to allow the Government to dismiss charges, like what happened in Holloway, to create a new, more lenient sentence for the defendant.
New York, Southern: United States v. Washington, No. 11-cr-605 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2014) (Sullivan, J.)
Oklahoma, Eastern: United States v. Rivera, No. 83-00096-01-CR (E.D. Okla. Sept. 15, 2015) (Seay, J.)
Pennsylvania, Eastern: United States v. Ezell, No. 02-815-01 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2015) (DuBois, J.); United States v. Trader, No. 04-680-06, 2015 WL 4941820 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2015) (DuBois, J.).
In each instance, the Government AGREED to dismiss one or more counts, and the Court allowed the Government to do so.
The net effect of all of this is that the only way a defendant can get relief from his or her sentence this way is IF the Government goes along with it AND the court does so too. If the Government is unwilling to dismiss any of the counts in the defendant's case, or if the defendant only has one count of conviction, there can be no "Holloway" relief. Keep in mind that for all of these things to fall into place would be TRULY EXTRAORDINARY. Not to say people should not try, but they should do so with eyes wide open about the possibility of relief.
Recommended for you
MVRA Restitution And Loss Amount Inadequate, Eleventh Circuit Holds
United States v. Mitchell J. Stein : Mitchell Stein, a former attorney, challenged the district court’s loss and MVRA restitution determination in a mail, wire, and securities fraud prosecution arguing that the Government had failed to demonstrate both factual and legal causation for the loss amount.Using the same standard for Stein’s loss and restitution challenge,…
Career Offender Enhancement Cannot Be Based On Texas Possession With Intent To Distribute Conviction
United States v. Tanksley – Career Offender Enhancement : Dantana Tanksley was previously convicted in Texas under Section 481.112(a) of the Texas controlled substances act of possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He was later enhanced as a career offender under federal sentencing guidelines. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, an individual can be…
Attorney Abandonment Claim Remanded For A Hearing
Mark Christeson filed a motion to re-open his habeas proceedings under Rule 60(b) arguing that his attorney’s failure to timely submit his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (used by state prisoners but similar to a 2255) constituted attorney abandonment. The abandonment issue was key to resolving whether “extraordinary circumstances” existed to warrant granting Rule 60…