Overview: The district court granted Marlow Farmer’s motion for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. Originally sentenced to life in 1997 for a crack cocaine conspiracy and related distribution offenses, Farmer became eligible for resentencing due to retroactive changes under the Fair Sentencing Act. The court reduced his sentence to time served—approximately 24 years—citing the now-applicable 20-year statutory maximum per count, Farmer’s exemplary prison record, significant rehabilitation efforts, and strong family support. The court concluded that the original mandatory life sentence would not be imposed and that a time-served sentence satisfied the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

See United States v. Womack, et al (Case No. 7:97-cr-40008)

Overview: The Federal Public Defender’s Office secured a compassionate release for Barry Edwards, a nonviolent first-time offender serving a 36-month sentence for tax and financial structuring offenses. While incarcerated, Mr. Edwards was diagnosed with incurable brain cancer and began chemotherapy and steroid treatment, leaving him immunocompromised. The Federal Public Defender’s Office filed a motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act, arguing that his terminal illness and heightened vulnerability to COVID-19 presented extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying early release. The court agreed, finding that Mr. Edwards faced a substantial and individualized risk from the pandemic, and that he posed no danger to the community. The court granted the motion and ordered his immediate release, concluding that continued incarceration would not have been imposed had the court known of his medical condition and the COVID-19 risks. This case reflects the FPD’s commitment to protecting the health and dignity of clients facing extraordinary circumstances while incarcerated. 

See United States v. Edwards, et al (Case No. 6:17-cr-00003)

Overview: The Fourth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Bonifacio Fernandez Sanchez’s illegal reentry indictment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The court held that Sanchez's 2011 removal was fundamentally unfair because the immigration judge failed to inform him of his right to appeal and falsely recorded an appeal waiver. The court concluded that had Sanchez been properly advised, he likely would have appealed and been granted voluntary departure, thereby avoiding removal. This due process violation satisfied all three prongs of § 1326(d), warranting dismissal of the indictment.

See United States v. Sanchez (Case No. 3:18-cr-00022)

Overview: The district court granted John Foster’s § 2255 motion challenging his 180-month Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) sentence. Foster had been convicted in 2010 under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and his sentence was enhanced under the ACCA based on three prior Virginia burglary convictions. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Johnson v. United States, which invalidated the ACCA’s residual clause, Foster argued that his prior convictions no longer qualified as ACCA predicates. The court found that under Johnson, Mathis, and subsequent Fourth Circuit precedent, Foster’s prior burglaries may have been counted under the now-unconstitutional residual clause. As a result, the court held Foster was entitled to relief, denied the government’s motion to dismiss, and granted Foster’s motion to vacate his sentence.

See United States v. Foster (Case No. 2:09-cr-00017)

Overview: The Federal Public’s Office successfully moved to suppress all evidence obtained during a traffic stop that violated the Fourth Amendment. Juan Ramirez-Solis was stopped for a suspected window tint violation, but officers unlawfully extended the stop for nearly two hours in an effort to investigate unsubstantiated suspicions of drug activity. During that time, they conducted an unlawful search and obtained a firearm, cash, and incriminating statements. The court found that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop, that the search was not justified by valid consent, and that both pre- and post-Miranda statements were tainted by the illegal detention. As a result, all key evidence was suppressed—delivering a clear and important victory for the defense.

See United States v. Ramirez-Solis (Case No. 4:19-cr-00039)

Overview: The Federal Public Defender’s Office achieved a partial victory in securing a substantial reduction in Jason Whiting’s term of supervised release. After Mr. Whiting was re-sentenced in 2018 due to an erroneous career offender designation, he began serving a 10-year supervised release term following his release in 2019. The FPD filed a motion seeking early termination based on Mr. Whiting’s excellent conduct, successful reintegration, and the added burdens of supervision during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the court declined to fully terminate supervision, it granted a significant reduction—cutting the 10-year term down to 40 months. The court praised Mr. Whiting’s positive attitude, steady employment, and commitment to starting a new life, but found that continued supervision was still in the best interest of both Mr. Whiting and the community. This ruling reflects meaningful progress and advocacy by the FPD, even though the full relief requested was not granted.

See United States v. Whiting (Case No. 5:12-cr-00002)

Overview: In a significant win for the Federal Public Defender’s Office, the court granted Tradon Drayton’s motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Drayton was originally sentenced to 548 months for drug and firearm offenses stemming from a 2006 jury conviction. His sentence had previously been reduced twice, but the Federal Public Defender’s Office successfully argued for a further reduction based on continued amendments to the crack cocaine guidelines and Drayton’s exemplary institutional record. Despite the serious nature of the underlying offenses, the court found that Drayton’s youth at the time of the crime, his steady rehabilitation over more than a decade in prison, and his completion of educational and life skills programs warranted a reduced sentence. With the government taking no position and deferring to the court, Drayton’s sentence was lowered from 470 to 452 months — a reduction of nearly two years. The ruling reflects the court’s confidence in Drayton’s progress and the value of meaningful second chances and marks a clear and positive outcome for the defense.

See United States v. Drayton (Case No. 1:04-cr-00009)

Overview: The Federal Public Defender’s Office secured a partial win on behalf of their client, Keith Gates. Gates moved to suppress both a firearm discovered on his person during a warrantless home entry and subsequent statements he made to police. The court denied suppression of the firearm, finding that the officers’ warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances, specifically multiple 911 calls reporting a violent domestic disturbance and corroborating information from an eyewitness. However, the court granted the motion to suppress Gates’s post-arrest statements. After being handcuffed and taken into custody, Gates was questioned about the firearm and his criminal history without receiving Miranda warnings. The court held that this constituted custodial interrogation and that the officer's questions were reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses. Therefore, Gates's statements about his possession of the firearm and felony record were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights and must be excluded from trial. This ruling represents a significant suppression of the government’s evidence, demonstrating effective advocacy by the FPD office in protecting their client’s constitutional rights.

See United States v. Gates (Case No. 7:19-cr-00062)