UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) v. ) ) Criminal Action Nos. 13-262-01, 02, 05 (RMC) PABLO LOVO, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Pablo Lovo, Joel Sorto, and Yonas Eshetu in 2014 of conspiring to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and Mr. Lovo and Mr. Sorto of using, carrying or possessing a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The Defendants were sentenced to prison terms of varying lengths followed by three years of supervised release. Following a 2018 Supreme Court decision in another case, the convictions of Messrs. Lovo and Sorto on the gun count were overturned; each Defendant’s conviction of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 was sustained. In 2018, all three Defendants were released from the Bureau of Prisons to begin their terms of supervised release. Each man has moved for early termination of supervised release. I. FACTS Mr. Lovo was sentenced to sixty-four months of incarceration for conspiring to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Count One), and sixty months of incarceration for using, carrying or possessing a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Two), to run consecutively; Mr. Sorto was sentenced to forty months of incarceration on Count One, and sixty months of incarceration on Count Two, to run consecutively; and Mr. Eshetu was sentenced to sixty-four months of incarceration on Count 1 One. Each Defendant was sentenced to thirty-six months of supervised release following incarceration. Defendants appealed their convictions on various grounds and, in an opinion dated July 25, 2017, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court on all but one claim. United States v. Eshetu, 863 F.3d 946 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Eshetu I), vacated in part on reh’g, 898 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The Circuit remanded to the district court to consider whether Defendants suffered ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel did not object to the admission of certain recordings or raise an entrapment defense. This Court received a mandate as to Mr. Eshetu on August 3, 2018; following a status hearing, the parties agreed to suspend further proceedings on the ineffective assistance claim until the Court received mandates for Messrs. Lovo and Sorto. Following the 2017 Circuit opinion, the Supreme Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b)—the “residual clause” of section 16’s crime-of-violence definition—is unconstitutionally vague. Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204, 1210 (2018). Messrs. Lovo and Sorto sought further review of their convictions on Count Two in light of Dimaya and on August 3, 2018, the Circuit vacated their convictions on Count Two. United States v. Eshetu, 898 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (Eshetu II). Counsel for Messrs. Lovo and Sorto then moved for their clients’ immediate release because each had already served his full prison term on Count One. The Court granted these motions: Mr. Sorto was released from the Bureau ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals