Attention Advocates: The United States Sentencing Commission is accepting public comment for their "Proposed Priorities" for the new "Amendment Cycle". Here's our chance to let our voices be heard. Below is a "SAMPLE LETTER" for everyone to send to the Commission encouraging them to make a retroactive Amendment that would give judges the discretion to resentence defendants in stash-house reverse-sting cases without regard to the imaginary drugs. The deadline for this e-mail/letter drive is July 27, 2015 so please reach out to the Commission asap. Their e-mail address is: pubaffairs@ussc.gov (Subject: "Proposed Priorities for Amendment Cycle") NOTE: Corrlinks users will have to retype the SAMPLE LETTER below and send it to someone on the outside to forward for them, unless the Commission accepts our e-mail request. SAMPLE LETTER: Dear United States Sentencing Commission, I write today to urge your consideration -- in accordance with USSC Rules of Procedure 5.2, and your statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. 994(a), (o), and (p) -- for a proposed retroactive amendment to "Application Note 14" of U.S.S.G Section 2D1.1(c), comment (n.14) {Re: Reverse Stings}. In the years since the original amendment in 1997, the nature of reverse stings has metamorphose surpassing the amendments reach. What is now known as "fictitious stash-house reverse stings" {SEE, www.ReverseSting.org} has become the go-to policing tactic for Federal Agents -- who inflate the quantity of imaginary drugs in order to trigger mandatory minimums. {SEE, United States v. Hudson, Whitefield & Dunlap (9th Cir. 2014) ("The time has come to remind the Executive Branch that the Constitution charges it with law enforcement, not crime creation."); United States v. Black, 750 F.3d 1053,1057 (9th Cir. 2014) (Reinhardt, J., dissenting from order denying petition for rehearing en banc) ("The Constitution does not allow the tactics employed by the government."); United States v. Black, 733 F.3d 294, 317 (9th Cir. 2013) (Noonan, J., dissenting) (stating that "it is a denial of due process for sentences to be at the arbitrary discretion of the ATF."); United States v. Kindle, 698 F.3d 401, 414 (7th Cir. 2012) (Posner, J., concurring and dissenting) (stating that stash-house stings "are a disreputable tactic"); United States v. McKenzie, 656 F.3d 688, 692 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Caban, 173 F.3d 89, 93-94 (2nd Cir. 1999). As evident by the nationwide media attention and court rulings made, prioritizing an amendment regarding these stings should be an obvious measure to be taken. As further evidence supporting the need to address this issue, twenty-two U.S. Representatives submitted a Bill to Congress on June 25, 2015 with "Provision Regarding Sentencing" that would give sentencing judges discretion to "disregard drug quantities determined by confidential informants, or law enforcement officers who solicit defendants to participate in fictitious stash-house robberies". {SEE, (SAFE) Justice Act (H.R.2944)}. For these reasons, I pray that you truly consider making the proposed amendment a priority. Respectfully Submitted, ___________________