To be clear, I already find the pro se motion highly objectionable—it’s not “just” anything in my eyes. This guy got extremely light sentences for his crimes, given the severity. And looking now to net your incarceration for killing a man against your incarceration for other crimes (which I recall involved PCP, resisting arrest and assault on an officer, and probation violation (relating to earlier drug and violent crimes, like the assault and domestic violence/sexual assault charges) isn’t right. He had the opportunity to understand his plea agreements when he signed them.

I’m also not yet able to get the full text of the December 14th filing by the new PD and am working off of the reference in the government’s motion to extend. He may only be trying to get a concurrent sentence. He may be trying to renege and renegotiate in full. I found the reference in the government’s response to the burdens they’re facing under the “Incarceration Reduction Amendments Act” to be troubling—though I don’t know much about this new law other than that you’re supposed to have been under 25 years of age and to have served 15 years before eligible for review. Given the significant press given to abuses under the Youth Rehabilitation Act (see the WaPo multi-part expose circa 2016), I don’t have any confidence that a leniency law might be improperly applied.