Sentencing Issues

Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat was appointed to represent a defendant on appeal who had been convicted and sentenced on federal charges of "conspiracy to interfere with civil rights and aiding and abetting the interference with a federally protected activity." Said more simply, the defendant was an accused leader of a white supremacist organization who was accused of minor participation in two local bar fights in Salt Lake City. Literally, a "federal case" was made out of what should have been two misdemeanor charges of assault. The defendant was sentenced to 87 months in federal prison. After looking at the facts of the case, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the defendant was erroneously sentenced based upon federal sentencing guideline provisions that did not apply, resulting in a substantial sentencing decrease. Upon resentencing, Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat secured a sentence that was approximately 50 months less than the original sentence, and the defendant was released shortly after resentencing.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/14/egbert_opinion.pdf
http://www.brownbradshaw.com/uploads/Walker%20published%20opinion.pdf

Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat represented a federal court clerk charged, along with her husband, of obstruction of justice and accessory (aiding and abetting) in the distribution of a controlled substance. After the defendant was convicted, the United States Supreme Court issued its crucial opinion of United States v. Booker, calling into question the constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guideline scheme. Recognizing the issues applied directly to Ms. Lang, Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat immediately argued for the application of the new ruling to Ms. Lang's sentence, and the Tenth Circuit remanded the case for resentencing consistent with the new decision. In doing so, Ms. Lang's sentence was substantially decreased, and she was ultimately released after being given credit for time served.
‍
http://www.brownbradshaw.com/uploads/Lang.pdf