Get on the path to results today.
About Us
Knowledge is POWER
- American Litigation Consultant, LLC is a internationally known and widely acclaimed consulting service, we research and investigative cases from pretrial to post conviction, in both Federal and State litigation.
- Assisting defendants, inmates, their attorneys and families with all aspects of potential criminal sentencing as well as matters dealing with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Our mission is to reduce the amount of time our clients spend in Federal or State prison and help them survive their journey into the 4th World, a World like no other they have ever experienced.
- ALC works with defendants and their attorneys with Federal and State plea agreement review, Federal and State sentencing guideline calculations, pre-sentence investigation report review and analysis, sentence mitigation, prison designation and RDAP assistance and analysis.
- ALC is one of the oldest prison consulting and sentence mitigation specialists in the country with over 37-years experience. We have built a national and international clientele and offer our services throughout the United States, Central and South America. investigating, preparing and implementing federal and State prison sentence reduction strategies including assistance and preparation for the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP).
- Federal prosecution is a “nightmare”, one of the worst experiences you will ever face. Think about these words. The United States of America v. You. Going it alone or using the wrong RDAP and prison consultants can cause you to make the wrong choices during the judicial process do to lack of knowledge or during the incarceration process which can cost you extra years of your life.
- You might think, "Didn't I pay my attorney to take care of this?" The answer is "NO"! Your attorney is focused on your legal case, trial, or plea. They themselves may very well be inexperienced in the application of the Federal or State Sentencing Guidelines and simply not understand the BOP's RDAP requirements and process. Unfortunately, most attorneys are not focused on this aspect of litigation, or not retained to address your post-conviction concerns about prison life and policies, and most importantly, the Bureau of Prison's RDAP program for your additional prison sentence reduction on top of your good time! We carry on where your attorney leaves off.
- How many times have you said: “If only I knew then, what I know now?”
- There exists a small window of opportunity for you to do it right the first time, to get every detail correct so you have favorable results. The good news is we, at American Litigation Consultant, are experts in this field.
- Your Best Solution:
- Imagine having your own expert RDAP and prison consultant by your side every step of the way from indictment to post-release.
- Imagine having your questions answered and your concerns addressed, preparing you for what to expect next.
- Imagine taking every advantage, every opportunity with the greatest possibility for sentence reduction and early release. Imagine less fear and confusion as you take charge of your life once again.
- You can with our help and experience.
- More importantly, we assist you to document and qualify for eligibility and admissions to the Bureau of Prison’s 500-hour Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program (RDAP), reducing your prison time by up to 30 months (12 months direct sentence reduction and up to 18 months halfway house and home confinement).
- You owe it to yourself and your loved ones to get home as quickly as possible through early release.
- Federal Sentencing Factor Analysis
- We thoroughly analyze the indictment, the Sentencing Guidelines and the alleged offender’s unique circumstances so as to determine the most likely federal sentencing guideline level and sentencing range.
- Downward Departure Investigation
- Our experienced Team will explore all possible avenues for a downward departure and reduction or elimination of federal prison time before a sentence is imposed.
- Pre-Incarceration Assistance
- ALC has individualized prison preparation programs designed to assist a federal offender preparing for a term of federal incarceration. We will make the transition from your yard, to the prison yard easier and less traumatic.
Assisting with prison designation to ensure that the defendant is sent to a facility with the most appropriate security classification that offers the most applicable and appropriate prison programs. - Diversionary Programs and Prison Alternatives
- ALC researches, investigates and proposes alternatives to incarceration and programs that can and will reduce the amount of time you spend in federal prison, or help you avoid confinement altogether.
- ALC helps people who are being charged or investigated for alleged fraud in applying for or taking out PPP and EIDL loans funded by the CARES Act. We help our clients avoid criminal charges, negotiate fair resolutions, and fight back in court against exaggerated allegations of fraud. Our strategy involves carefully reviewing all relevant loan and financial documents, consulting with forensic accountants and other financial specialists with experience in PPP and EIDL loans, and engaging law enforcement agents and prosecutors early in the process to ensure they have a full picture of the facts helpful to our clients. We also help our clients gain access to seized or frozen accounts by working with banks, and government agents to release money that rightfully belongs to our clients. To help our clients understand the scope of these PPP and EIDL loan fraud investigations, and to make sure they are being treated fairly in the process, we keep close track of federal criminal cases involving CARES Act programs.
A Focus on Results
The first step is for us to work with you and come up with a plan to get the results you need. Through our understanding of the law and your understanding of the circumstances, we will craft a path to success.
Get Started Today
Don't wait! Contact us for a free phone consultation. Let us help you figure out your best next steps are. The sooner you have a plan of action, the better your chances of taking the correct steps to get the results you want.
A Sampling of our Successes
- The following is a small sampling of our more recent successful cases:
- United States v. Vassiliades, Case No. 2:96-CR-00217 out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where he was able to get a Life Sentence reduced to time served;
- United States v. Cleveland Hankerson, Case No. 91-CR-00010 in the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division where again, he was able to get a Life Sentence reduced to time served.
- In The United States Supreme Court, in Jimmy Lee Byrd v. United States, 544 U.S. 1059 (2005) American Litigation Consultants was able to get Cert. Granted and the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the 11th Cir. For further consideration in light of, United States v. Booker 543 U..S 220 (2005).
- United States v. Pagan - San Miguel, Case No. 3:91-cr-170-2 (CCC), District of Puerto Rico, sentence reduced from 740 months to time served.
- JUAN CARLOS MARTINEZ, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Decision by Court. Judgment in a 2255 Action Criminal Case No. 7:12-CR-37-8FA Civil Case No. 7:16-CV-76-FA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION This action came before the Honorable David A. Faber, Senior United States District Judge, for consideration of a Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED, and the § 2255 motion to vacate is GRANTED. Petitioner’s conviction and sentence on Count Seven, using and carrying firearms during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii), are VACATED
- United States v. George DeJesus, Southern District of New York. George it took awhile for the court to rule, but we got the right ruling. George was immediately released yesterday. ORDER as to George DeJesus: Upon motion of George DeJesus for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), and after considering the applicable factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, IT IS SO ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The defendant's previously imposed sentence of imprisonment of 360 months is reduced to time served. This order is stayed for up to fourteen days, for the verification of the defendant's residence and/or establishment of a release plan, to make appropriate travel arrangements, and to ensure the defendant's safe release. The defendant shall be released as soon as a residence is verified, a release plan is established, appropriate travel arrangements are made, and it is safe for defendant to travel. There shall be no delay in ensuring travel arrangements are made. If more than fourteen days are needed to make appropriate travel arrangements and ensure the defendant's safe release, the parties shall immediately notify the court and show cause why the stay should be extended. The defendant must provide the complete address where the defendant will reside upon release to the probation office in the district where they will be released because it was not included in the motion for sentence reduction. The defendant's previously imposed conditions of supervised release are unchanged. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/19/2022) (lnl) (Entered: 04/19/2022).
- United States v. Sanjay Kumar (4th Cir, March 15 2024), Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to correct the plain error and vacate Kumar’s § 841(a)(1) convictions. Because the district court’s instructions referenced § 841(a)(1) as a predicate unlawful activity, we also conclude that the instructional error casts doubt on Kumar’s money laundering convictions under § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (ii). See United States v. Kahn, 58 F.4th 1308, 1322 (10th Cir. 2023) (vacating money laundering convictions when those convictions related to the § 841(a)(1) convictions the court vacated in light of Ruan). But we find no such prejudicial effect on Kumar’s tax evasion convictions. The relevant instructions for those instructions did not reference § 841(a)(1), and Kumar admitted that he stopped paying his taxes. Therefore, we affirm Kumar’s convictions on Counts 43, 44, and 45, vacate his remaining convictions, and remand for further proceedings. In light of this disposition, we decline to consider Kumar’s other challenges to the district court proceedings.* See Smithers, 92 F.4th at 240. We deny Kumar’s pending motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. The Court knocked 240-months of the Doctors Illegal Sentence. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 96-00075-CR-COHN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ABEL RIZO, Defendant. / ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF SENTENCE. THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Abel Rizos pro se Motion for Modification of Sentence (“Motion”) [DE 1730]. The Court has considered the Motion, the Government’s Response [DE 1732], Defendant’s Reply [DE 1734], and the record in this case, and is otherwise advised in the premises. On August 25, 1997, Defendant was sentenced to 468 months imprisonment after being convicted by a jury of one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); one count of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); two counts of attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); one count of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime and Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and one count of using and carrying a firearm in relation to an attempted Hobbs Act robbery, also in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). DE 663. This sentence consisted of 168 months on the cocaine possession and conspiracy convictions, 60-month concurrent terms on the Hobbs Act convictions, a 60-month consecutive term on the first 924(c) conviction, and a 240-month term on the second 924(c) conviction to be served consecutively to all Case 1:96-cr-00075-JIC Document 1739 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 1 of 7 2 the other terms. Id. Defendant is now fifty-two years old and is scheduled to be released from custody in September 2029. At sentencing, Defendant had no prior criminal convictions and zero criminal history points. His incredibly lengthy sentence was primarily the result of the Court being required to “stack” his Section 924(c) sentences. That is, at the time of Defendant's sentencing, one Section 924(c) conviction carried a mandatory five-year sentence that must be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment; a second or subsequent Section 924(c) conviction required the court to impose an additional twenty-year sentence that must be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment, even if the gun possession occurred during the same course of conduct as the first count. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (1997). In 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act which, among other things, “clarified that § 924(c) counts can only be stacked if the second offense occurs after a final conviction on the first offense.” United States v. Brown, 411 F. Supp. 3d 446, 453 (S.D. Iowa 2019). Today, a conviction under Section 924(c) for using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime carries a mandatory minimum five-year sentence that must be served consecutive to the predicate crime of violence or drug trafficking crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Thus, if sentenced for the same conduct today, Defendant's convictions under Section 924(c) would not be stacked and would carry mandatory minimum sentences of five years' imprisonment each. See id. Although Defendant concedes that the First Step Act’s changes to 924(c)’s penalties are not retroactive, he argues that they show extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction because he received an “unusually long sentence” Case 1:96-cr-00075-JIC Document 1739 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/03/2024 Page 2 of 7 3 compared to what he would likely receive today. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) permits courts to grant compassionate release upon finding “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that are “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Effective November 1, 2023, the Sentencing Commission amended that policy statement by broadening the scope of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to include “unusually long sentences.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). Specifically, it provides that: If a defendant received an unusually long sentence and has served at least 10 years of the term of imprisonment, a change in the law (other than an amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive) may be considered in determining whether the defendant presents an extraordinary and compelling reason, but only where such change would produce a gross disparity between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed, and after full consideration of the defendant’s individualized circumstances. Id. The Government opposes his Motion, primarily arguing that the Sentencing Commission exceeded its delegated authority by recognizing nonretroactive changes in law as an extraordinary and compelling reason for sentence reductions in Section 1B1.13(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) rejects the Government’s challenge to the validity of Section 1B1.13(b)(6); and (2) finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction of Defendant’s sentence. First, the Government cites no binding authority—nor is the Court aware of any— that governs the specific issue of the validity of Section 1B1.13(b)(6)’s treatment of nonretroactive changes in law. This is unsurprising because the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243 (11th Cir. 2021) precludes district courts from considering any reason for compassionate release beyond those reasons articulated in the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement. And prior to November 1, 2023, that policy statement provided that, with respect to defendant-filed motions, extraordinary and compelling reasons could only exist based on the defendant’s medical condition, age, or family circumstances. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit has had no occasion to decide whether nonretroactive changes in law can constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. In the absence of binding precedent, the Court finds persuasive the analysis of a district court in the North District of Georgia. See United States v. Ware, Case No. 1:97-CR-00009-SCJ, 2024 WL 1007427 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 6, 2024) (rejecting a substantially similar Government challenge to the validity Section 1B1.13(b)(6)). Ware examined Section 1B1.13(b)(6) in the context of “the Eleventh Circuit's . . . admonishments regarding the strong deference to be afforded the Sentencing Commission in issuing its policy statements.” Id. at *6 (citing Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1255). . Defendant Abel Rizo’s pro se Motion for Modification of Sentence [DE 1730] is GRANTED as set forth below: a. Defendant’s term of incarceration on count 10 is reduced to a sentence of 60 months to run consecutive all other counts. b. Defendant's previously imposed term and conditions of supervised release are unchanged. 2. An amended judgment will be entered. 3. Sentence reduced to 288 months or time served.
Don't wait!, Contact us for a free phone consultation. Let us help you figure out what your best next steps are. The sooner you have a plan of action, the better your chances are to get the results you want..
My Blog
SERVICES OFFERED
- Pretrial Consultation: Evaluate charges against, review your personal and criminal history, evaluate all aggravation factors that the government will use to enhance any sentencing exposure you are facing in the event of a guilty plea or finding of guilt. We will identify any mitigating factors applicable to your specific case to be used to offset any aggravating factors used by the government for an increase in sentence or give the Court a solid foundation to depart downwards from your sentencing exposure.
- Pardons or Commutation of Federal Sentences
- Covid-19 petitions for compassionate release.
- Petitions to modify sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C 3582(c)
- Post Conviction Relief motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C 2255:
-28 USC 2241 as well as State Petitions pursuant 28 U.S.C 2254 and 2244
- Civil Actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983,
- Americans With Disabilities Act Violations
-Federal Tort Claims Act
- Immigration Visa application assistance
- Applications For Asylum
- Consultation and Expert Witness
- Seizures and Forfeitures (if you have been the victim of a Federal forfeiture we may be able assist you in recovery)
- Inmate Appeals for institutional infractions in which you have lost "good" time;
- INTERNATIONAL PRISONER TRANSFERES
- Challenging Extradition to the United States
About Us
Help us Help indigent prisoners, scan and donate
for those seeking to do their own legal work, Our legal Resource link is offered for free to help inmates and family members research favorable case law that they may need in their own journey for justice.
Copyright © 2024 American Litigation Consultant-Legal Consultant - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy Website Builder
This website uses cookies.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.
Announcement
Welcome! we are offering Free access to our Legal Resources Page for all Our visitors especially those with loved ones that are incarcerated. I believe in passing on the blessings I have been giving by God to others.