Month: February 2025

AEL and FAMM File Amicus Brief in Rutherford v. United States

On February 21, 2025, Abell Eskew Landau LLP and FAMM filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in Rutherford v. United States.  The brief urged the Supreme Court to grant a petition for certiorari filed by Daniel Rutherford, who had sought a sentence reduction in the lower courts pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (sometimes called the “compassionate release” statute). The district court denied relief and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, holding that a policy statement promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission in 2023 permitting certain people to seek sentence reductions exceeded the broad authority that Congress expressly delegated to the Commission.     

The brief supports Petitioner’s argument that the Commission’s policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6), was valid, proper, and within the scope of the Commission’s authority.  Section 1B1.13(b)(6) provides that, when deciding whether a person has identified an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction, courts may consider a later change in the law if the person has already served ten years of “an unusually long sentence” that, after full consideration of the person’s individualized circumstances, reflects “a gross disparity” between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed today. The Third Circuit’s decision reignites a division among the federal Courts of Appeals that § 1B1.13(b)(6) properly resolved, and it prevents many incarcerated people from even seeking to reduce lengthy sentences now acknowledged as unjust. The brief urges the Court to grant the petition in order to confirm the statutory authority of the Commission, the broad scope of courts’ sentencing discretion, and the relevance of changes in the law to motions seeking relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A).

The brief, which can be reviewed below, reflects the firm’s commitment to seeking justice in sentencing and advocating for the rights of incarcerated persons.

The AEL team includes Jarrod Schaeffer, Jeffrey Braun, Katherine Kulkarni, and Olivia Jecklin. The FAMM team includes Mary Price and Shanna Rifkin.

AEL attorneys David M. Eskew and Heather Suchorsky obtained a probationary sentence (no jail time) in a federal healthcare fraud case on behalf of a pharmacist client. The case, which had been indicted in the Eastern District of New York, was part of a broader healthcare fraud scheme in which the conspirators allegedly paid kickbacks to obtain over $100 million in pharmacy billings. At the sentencing hearing, the government sought a “Guidelines” sentence of nearly three years’ imprisonment and contested the defendant’s submission regarding his role in the broader conspiracy. AEL won the disputed role enhancement issue and obtained a further downward variance based upon several factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The favorable sentence ended a lengthy ordeal for the client, which included a years’ long investigation and an indictment that had been pending for nearly two years more.

The client described AEL’s work in the case: “I am incredibly grateful for the dedication and skill that AEL brought to my case. Their strategic approach, deep understanding of the law, and unwavering support made all the difference in achieving this outcome. It was a long and difficult journey, but their guidance gave me confidence every step of the way.”

AEL specializes in federal white-collar criminal defense with a particular expertise in parallel criminal and civil investigations involving individual and institutional healthcare clients ranging from doctors, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals to large national hospital systems, laboratories, life sciences companies, and healthcare adjacent entities. AEL has an established track record of assisting clients in avoiding and minimizing federal charges and pushing back against federal prosecutors and agencies with an evidence-based, detail-oriented approach.

*** The foregoing may constitute attorney advertising and readers are cautioned that prior results do not guarantee future outcomes.