News for May 10, 2026: Firearm Enhancement Hearing, Double Jeopardy Ruling, More Judges Reversed for Sentencing Errors

Every week, we review important new federal court decisions involving sentencing, appeals, compassionate release, supervised release, habeas corpus litigation, and other postconviction issues affecting people in prison. The goal of this newsletter is not just to summarize cases, but to explain why these rulings matter, how they may apply to other federal prisoners, and what legal issues people should understand when seeking postconviction relief. Each case includes links to download the actual court decision along with additional analysis breaking down the legal arguments, mistakes made by the courts or attorneys involved, and how these rulings may help others challenging convictions or sentences.

Smith-Johnson v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101761 (S.D. Ill. May 7, 2026)

Court Orders Evidentiary Hearing Over Improper Firearm Enhancement

The district court ordered an evidentiary hearing on whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a four-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. sec. 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), finding that the issue raised serious unresolved legal questions that required further factual development. The enhancement was applied because Smith-Johnson possessed a firearm equipped with a machinegun switch, but the court questioned whether the Guidelines actually allow the enhancement when the alleged “other felony offense” is simply possession of the same firearm already forming the basis of the conviction. The court explained that the enhancement normally requires the firearm to facilitate a separate felony offense, and here the record suggested a potentially improper “double counting” situation where the firearm supposedly facilitated possession of itself. Because there was little case law directly addressing this issue, and because an attorney’s failure to object to a Guidelines error that increases a sentence can amount to ineffective assistance of counsel under sec. 2255, the court found that additional briefing, appointed counsel, and an evidentiary hearing were necessary before deciding whether the enhancement was lawfully applied.

---

United States v. Ortiz-Colón, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 13136 (1st Cir. May 6, 2026)

Court Finds Double Jeopardy Violation for Separate Receipt and Possession CSAM Convictions

The First Circuit held that Ortiz’s separate convictions for receipt and possession of CSAM violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because the government relied on the same images and same conduct to prove both offenses. The court explained that possession is generally considered a lesser included offense of receipt because someone who receives child pornography necessarily possesses it at the same time. While prosecutors argued on appeal that different images could have supported separate charges, the appellate court found that the indictment, jury instructions, verdict form, and closing arguments never clearly separated which images supported the receipt count versus the possession count. Instead, the government repeatedly treated all the images together and argued that Ortiz both received and possessed the same material during the same time period. Because the record failed to show the convictions were based on separate evidence, the court ruled that punishing Ortiz for both offenses violated double jeopardy protections against multiple punishments for the same conduct and remanded the case so one of the two convictions could be vacated.

---

United States v. Rosa-Borges, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12688 (1st Cir. May 1, 2026)

First Circuit Vacates Sentence After Judge Relied on Improper Reasons for Increased Sentence

The First Circuit vacated Rosa’s above-guidelines firearm sentence and remanded the case for resentencing before a different judge after finding that the district court relied on legally invalid and unsupported reasons to justify a harsher sentence. The sentencing judge increased Rosa’s sentence based in part on Puerto Rico’s high level of gun violence, the supposed “high amount” of ammunition involved, and claims that the ammunition was the type “used by NATO countries for firearms of war.” The appellate court found those reasons improper because 31 rounds of ammunition was not unusually large and because there was no evidence in the record supporting the judge’s statements about “firearms of war” ammunition. The court explained that sentencing judges cannot impose harsher sentences based on generalized community concerns, unsupported assumptions, or facts outside the record without giving the defense notice and an opportunity to challenge those claims. Because the appellate court could not determine whether the same sentence would have been imposed without those improper considerations, it vacated the sentence and ordered resentencing before a new judge.

---

United States v. Barton, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 13153 (6th Cir. May 6, 2026)

Sixth Circuit Vacates Sentence After Judge Imposed Sentence He Threatened Earlier

The Sixth Circuit vacated Barton’s 24-month revocation sentence after finding that the district judge improperly predetermined the sentence months before the later violation hearing even occurred. During an earlier supervised release hearing, the judge gave Barton an ultimatum: either accept six months in prison immediately or remain on supervision with the warning that if he violated any condition again, the judge would impose the statutory maximum two-year sentence. After Barton later committed another violation involving an internet-connected tablet, the judge followed through on that promise and repeatedly stated that he was simply “keeping his word” and enforcing the earlier deal. The appellate court held that sentencing cannot work that way because judges are required to evaluate each violation individually based on the facts, arguments, Guidelines range, and sentencing factors that exist at the time of the actual hearing. The court explained that a judge cannot predetermine a future sentence in advance, regardless of what later conduct occurs, because doing so eliminates the individualized sentencing process required by federal law. Since the record showed the judge imposed the maximum sentence largely because of the earlier promise rather than a fresh evaluation of the later violations, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable and ordered resentencing.

---

Insider’s Guide to Using Habeas Corpus to Get Out of Prison: A practical overview for state and federal prisoners seeking relief in federal court, written from 16+ years of experience in post-conviction work.

First Name:

Email address:

Leave this field empty if you’re human: