Compassionate release for individuals impacted by discriminatory sentencing practices of the past
For decades, excessively long mandatory sentences and the practice of “sentence stacking” (also known as “18 USC § 924(c) stacking”) disproportionately impacted people of color sentenced in federal courts. This past spring, as part of Davis Polk’s ongoing commitment to pro bono compassionate release matters, our lawyers secured the release of two individuals whose lives were dramatically impacted by overly harsh sentences.
Rufus Brown and Edgardo Quirós-Morales entered prison as young adults, and each served more than 25 years in prison before being granted compassionate release.
Mr. Brown was originally sentenced to 119 years in prison for his participation at age 28 in a series of armed robberies in which no shots were fired and no one was physically injured. His sentence, which was more than five and a half times the average federal sentence for murder imposed today, was unusually long due to the now-prohibited sentence stacking provision. Only 14 years of Mr. Brown’s sentence resulted from charges for the robberies themselves; the remaining 105 years were the result of “stacked” firearm counts under § 924(c), which, at the time, required the sentencing court to impose consecutive 20-year terms for each § 924(c) conviction stemming from the same offense. Stacked sentences were criticized as often being excessively harsh, and as one lawyer argued in a case similar to Mr. Brown’s, “punishing first offenders with twenty-five-year sentences does not deter crime as much as it ruins lives.”*
In 2018, § 924(c) stacking was eliminated by the First Step Act, but this change of law was not made retroactive. In 2022, the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in United States v. McCall, which prohibited district courts from considering nonretroactive changes in law when determining whether there were “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence reduction under compassionate release. On November 1, 2023, the U.S. Sentencing Commission amended the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and corresponding policy statement to include nonretroactive sentencing changes in certain circumstances as “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warranting relief under compassionate release. Our lawyers argued that the policy statement then became controlling on district courts and superseded McCall.
In 2018, § 924(c) stacking was eliminated by the First Step Act, but this change of law was not made retroactive. In 2022, the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in United States v. McCall, which prohibited district courts from considering nonretroactive changes in law when determining whether there were “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence reduction under compassionate release. On November 1, 2023, the U.S. Sentencing Commission amended the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and corresponding policy statement to include nonretroactive sentencing changes in certain circumstances as “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warranting relief under compassionate release. Our lawyers argued that the policy statement then became controlling on district courts and superseded McCall.
Given the novel and complex issues of law involved, the Davis Polk team extensively briefed the relevant points. On January 23, 2024, in the Southern District of Ohio, Timothy Sullivan, an associate in our Environmental practice, argued in favor of the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s authority and its November 1, 2023 policy amendments being applicable to Mr. Brown’s case. When asked about his experience arguing before the Court, Timothy shared that “despite being a corporate associate, I’ve always maintained a strong interest in litigation work, especially criminal justice litigation. I’ve never felt corporate and criminal work to be mutually exclusive and I’ve really enjoyed the ability to hone a different skill set.”
On February 2, Chief Judge Marbley issued an order granting Mr. Brown’s motion for compassionate release and reducing his sentence to time served. On February 5, at the age of 57, Mr. Brown was released into the care of his brothers and reunited with his mother, more than 28 years after he first entered prison.
“There are so many people like Rufus across the United States languishing in desperate and unjust circumstances. The scope for making meaningful impact on somebody’s life through pro bono work in this area is enormous,” Timothy said.
Another client, Mr. Quirós-Morales, was sentenced to life in prison at the age of 23 by the Federal District Court in Puerto Rico for one count of conspiracy to distribute drugs. Although Mr. Quirós-Morales had no prior criminal history, he was sentenced to life in prison because of a then-mandatory sentencing guideline cross-reference. Mr. Quirós-Morales’ sentencing judge applied this cross-reference without stating any basis for doing so. In a motion initially filed in 2021, the Davis Polk team argued that the absence of any factual basis for the cross-reference, the disparity between Mr. Quirós-Morales’ sentence and those of similarly situated co-defendants (who did not receive life sentences), and Mr. Quirós-Morales’ tremendous personal achievements and rehabilitation during his decades of incarceration constituted extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting compassionate release.
“There are so many people like Rufus across the United States languishing in desperate and unjust circumstances. The scope for making meaningful impact on somebody’s life through pro bono work in this area is enormous,” Timothy said.
Another client, Mr. Quirós-Morales, was sentenced to life in prison at the age of 23 by the Federal District Court in Puerto Rico for one count of conspiracy to distribute drugs. Although Mr. Quirós-Morales had no prior criminal history, he was sentenced to life in prison because of a then-mandatory sentencing guideline cross-reference. Mr. Quirós-Morales’ sentencing judge applied this cross-reference without stating any basis for doing so. In a motion initially filed in 2021, the Davis Polk team argued that the absence of any factual basis for the cross-reference, the disparity between Mr. Quirós-Morales’ sentence and those of similarly situated co-defendants (who did not receive life sentences), and Mr. Quirós-Morales’ tremendous personal achievements and rehabilitation during his decades of incarceration constituted extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting compassionate release.