Free Document re Reduction of Sentence re: Crack Cocaine Offense 18:3582 - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:02-cr-00246-JCH

Document 17

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAMIAN BAILEY : : : : :

CRIMINAL NO. 3:02CR246(JCH) February 29, 2008

GOVERNMENT'S NOTICE REGARDING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE (TO TIME SERVED) PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) On April 11, 2003, the defendant, Damian Bailey, was sentenced to 87 months' incarceration. The defendant is due to be released from incarceration on June 29, 2008. Although the defendant has not yet sought relief based upon the changes to the crack cocaine guidelines which were passed by the Sentencing Commission on November 1, 2007, he does appear to qualify for a reduction. For the reasons stated herein, the Government respectfully submits that, on March 3, 2008, the date when the November 1, 2007 amendment becomes retroactive, the Court should issue an amended judgment and impose a reduced sentence of 70 months (time served), which accounts for the twolevel reduction in the crack cocaine guidelines, and which will result in the defendant's release from incarceration.1 Further, given the crush of potential releases on March 3, the Bureau of Prisons has recently requested the district court in cases authorizing release on March 3, 2008 to stay the March 3, 2008 release for 10 days to permit the BOP to meet a number of release-related obligations, including making sure victims or witnesses are appropriately notified, DNA samples taken, and release plans made. The Government would leave it to the Court, in consultation with the Probation Office, whether to honor the Bureau of Prison's request.

The Court can issue an amended judgment in advance of March 3, 2008, provided that the judgment makes clear the fact that the modified sentence does not take effect until on or after March 3, 2008.

1

Case 3:02-cr-00246-JCH

Document 17

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 2 of 11

I.

BACKGROUND On September 3, 2002, the defendant pled guilty to a one count information, charging the

defendant with a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(B). With the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that the quantity of cocaine base relevant to the Guidelines analysis was 43.4 grams, resulting in a base offense level of 30 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. The parties further agreed that a two level enhancement for possessing a dangerous weapon and a three level reduction for acceptance of responsibility applied. Finally, the parties agreed that the defendant was a criminal history category I, subjecting the defendant to a Guidelines imprisonment range of 87-108 months and a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years. The PSR adopted the same sentencing calculation. PSR ¶ 69. According to the Statement of Reasons, the Court adopted the proposed Guidelines

calculations and sentenced the defendant to the bottom of the range, an 87 month sentence of incarceration. II. DISCUSSION On November 1, 2007, the Sentencing Commission amended the cocaine base guidelines provided for under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c). The amendment in question is Amendment 706, effective November 1, 2007, which reduced the base offense level for most crack cocaine offenses.2 In Amendment 706, the Commission generally reduced by two levels the offense levels applicable to crack cocaine offenses. The Commission reasoned that, putting aside its stated criticism of the 100:1

Amendment 706 was further amended in the technical and conforming amendments set forth in Amendment 711, also effective November 1, 2007. 2

2

Case 3:02-cr-00246-JCH

Document 17

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 3 of 11

ratio applied by Congress to powder cocaine and crack cocaine offenses in setting statutory mandatory minimum penalties, the Commission could respect those mandatory penalties while still reducing the offense levels for crack offenses. See U.S.S.G., Supplement to App. C, Amend. 706. Previously, the Commission had set the crack offense levels in Section 2D1.1 above the range which included the mandatory minimum sentence. Under the amendment, the Commission has set the offense levels so that the resulting guideline range includes the mandatory minimum penalty triggered by that amount, and then set corresponding offense levels for quantities which fall below, between, or above quantities which trigger statutory mandatory minimum penalties. For example, a trafficking offense involving five grams of crack cocaine requires a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of five years imprisonment. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Therefore, the revised guideline applies an offense level of 24 to a quantity of cocaine base ("crack") of at least five grams but less than 20 grams; at criminal history category I, this level produces a range of 51-63 months (encompassing the 60-month mandatory minimum). The final result of the amendment is a reduction of two levels for each of the ranges set in the guidelines for crack offenses. At the high end, the guideline previously applied offense level 38 to any quantity of crack of 1.5 kilograms or more. That offense level now applies to a quantity of 4.5 kilograms or more; a quantity of at least 1.5 kilograms but less than 4.5 kilograms falls in offense level 36. At the low end, the guideline previously assigned level 12 to a quantity of less than 250 milligrams. That offense level now applies to a quantity of less than 500 milligrams. In this case, it would appear that applying the November 1, 2007 amendment would result in an adjusted total offense level of 27 and a new guidelines incarceration range of 70-87 months. See 1B1.10 (policy statement). Here, the bottom of the original guideline range was 87 months, 3

Case 3:02-cr-00246-JCH

Document 17

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 4 of 11

which was the sentence ultimately imposed by the Court. Thus, it would appear that the reduction authorized by the Sentencing Commission would be as low as 70 months, the bottom of the range for the recalculated Guidelines. If the Court were to adopt a revised sentence of 70 months, the defendant would have now served sufficient time to satisfy this sentence. On December 11, 2007, the Commission added Amendment 706 to the list of amendments stated in Section 1B1.10(c) which may be applied retroactively, effective March 3, 2008. Accordingly, this Court is without authority to reduce a sentence prior to that date. Congress has delegated to the Sentencing Commission the sole authority to permit the retroactive application of a guideline reduction, and no court may alter an otherwise final sentence on the basis of such a retroactive guideline unless the Sentencing Commission expressly permits it. See, e.g., United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 255, 259 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Thompson, 70 F.3d 279, 281 (3d Cir. 1995); United States v. McHan, 386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir. 2004); United States v. Drath, 89 F.3d 216, 218 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Dullen, 15 F.3d 68, 70-71 (6th Cir. 1994); Ebbole v. United States, 8 F.3d 530, 539 (7th Cir. 1993); United States v. Wyatt, 115 F.3d 606, 608-09 (8th Cir. 1997); United States v. Cueto, 9 F.3d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Avila, 997 F.2d 767, 768 (10th Cir. 1993); United States v. Armstrong, 347 F.3d 905, 909 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Pierre Louie v. United States, 2008 WL 114468 at *7 (D. Me. Jan. 1, 2008) (amendment 706 becomes retroactive on March 3, 2008 "meaning, that as of that date, impacted defendants serving eligible sentences may be able to move for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)"). Indeed, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois has stayed all Section 3582(c) motions based on Amendment 706 until March 3, 2008. See United States v. Wommack,

4

Case 3:02-cr-00246-JCH

Document 17

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 5 of 11

2008 WL 78782 at *1 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2008).3 Section 3582(c)(2) provides: [I]n the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Id. The Court may act on this motion without the defendant's presence. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(3) clearly states that "proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant." In addition, Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(4) explicitly provides that a defendant "need not be present" when the proceeding involves a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Likewise, given the rules and considering the burdens imposed on producing prisoners incarcerated within the Bureau of Prisons, the federal courts of appeal to address this issue have uniformly held that a defendant has no constitutional or statutory right to be present in connection with a motion filed under Section 3582(c). See, e.g., Anderson v. United States, 241 Fed. Appx. 625, 629 (11th Cir. July 18, 2007) (unpublished) ("Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(b)(4), a defendant's presence at a § 3582(c) sentence correction proceeding is not required") (emphasis in original); United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2000) (same; hearing not required); United States v. Tidwell, 178 F.3d 946, 948-949 (7th Cir. 1999) (same,

The Sentencing Commission imposed the delay in light of the enormous burdens that retroactive application of the crack cocaine amendments, in tens of thousands of cases, will impose on the courts, prison officials, probation officers, prosecutors, and others. The delayed implementation of retroactivity permits all officials to assure the orderly handling of these many cases and prisoners. Delayed implementation also allows for Congressional review of the Commission's decision and Congress may choose to reject or alter the Commission's decision. 5

3

Case 3:02-cr-00246-JCH

Document 17

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 6 of 11

noting that "a proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) is not a do-over of an original sentencing proceeding where a defendant is cloaked in rights mandated by statutory law and the Constitution").

Although the defendant may qualify for a reduction in sentence under Section 3582(c)(2) and the applicable policy statements of the Commission, a reduction of sentence is not automatic. This Court's discretion is set forth in Section 3582(c)(2) itself, which provides: "the court may reduce the term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission." Thus, "[t]he grant of authority to the district court to reduce a term of imprisonment is unambiguously discretionary," even when the guideline range is actually reduced. United States v. Vautier, 144 F.3d 756, 760 (11th Cir. 1998);4 see also United States v. Colon, 961 F.2d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 1992)(stating that district court, in the first instance, had to determine to what extent, if any, it has authority to apply retroactive amendment and whether it wishes to exercise its discretion to do so). Similarly, section 1B1.10 directs that "the court shall consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in determining . . . whether a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment is warranted." Id. app. note 1(B)(I); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 background ("The authorization of such a discretionary reduction does not otherwise affect the lawfulness of a previously imposed
4

In Vautier, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a Section 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence, upon considering the 3553(a) factors. The district court denied the motion, stating that "in light of this Court's expressed concern of the defendant's demonstrated violence and factoring all of the other considerations that went into the establishment of this defendant's sentence, the same sentence would have been imposed under the current amended guidelines." Vautier, 144 F.3d at 759. 6

Case 3:02-cr-00246-JCH

Document 17

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 7 of 11

sentence, does not authorize a reduction in any other component of the sentence, and does not entitle a defendant to a reduced term of imprisonment as a matter of right."). All courts are in accord on this point. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995) (district court permissibly declined to reduce sentence); United States v. Ursery, 109 F.3d 1129, 1137 (6th Cir. 1997); United States v. Coohey, 11 F.3d 97, 101 (8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Wales, 977 F.2d 1323, 1327-28 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Mueller, 27 F.3d 494, 497 n.5 (10th Cir. 1994). "Thus, reading § 3582(c)(2) and the Sentencing Guidelines together, the district court must make two distinct determinations before deciding whether to reduce a defendant's sentence under § 3582(c)(2)." Vautier, 144 F.3d at 760. First, Section 1B1.10(b) directs: In determining whether, and to what extent, a reduction in the term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement is warranted, the court shall determine the amended guideline range that would have been applicable to the defendant if the amendment(s) to the guidelines listed in subsection (c) had been in effect at the time the defendant was sentenced . . . . Id. In other words, "the court must substitute the amended guideline range for the originally applied guideline range and determine what sentence it would have imposed. In undertaking this first step, only the amended guideline range is changed. All other guideline application decisions made during the original sentencing remain intact." Vautier, 144 F.3d at 760. Then, in the second step, "in light of the conclusion reached in the first step, the court must consider the factors listed in § 3553(a) and determine whether or not to reduce the defendant's original sentence." Id.5 Subject to the limits set forth in Section 1B1.10(b), the Court may consider
5

The Eighth Circuit has also endorsed and explained at length this two-step procedure. United States v. Hasan, 245 F.3d 682, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2001) (en banc), citing United States v. Wyatt, 115 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 1997). In United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 728 (4th Cir. 2000), however, the court stated that it disagreed with the need for or utility of the two-step method. The essence of its ruling was that the district court's proper consideration of the factors 7

Case 3:02-cr-00246-JCH

Document 17

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 8 of 11

all pertinent information in applying the Section 3553(a) factors and determining whether and by how much to reduce the defendant's sentence. In particular, the Court must consider public safety considerations, and may consider information regarding the post-sentencing conduct or situation of the defendant, whether positive or negative. Revised application note 1(B)(ii) directs that "[t]he court shall consider the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that may be posed by a reduction in the defendant's term of imprisonment." Revised application note 1(B)(iii) further directs that "[t]he court may consider post-sentencing conduct of the defendant that occurred after the imposition of the original term of imprisonment." The application note explains that these factors are relevant in determining whether and by how much to reduce a sentence, but only within the limits set forth in Section 1B1.10(b). If this Court decides to reduce a defendant's sentence, the extent of the reduction is strictly limited. Congress delegated to the Sentencing Commission the authority to determine to what extent a sentence may be reduced. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 994(u). The Commission, in turn, directed in Section 1B1.10(b) that, with one exception (where the defendant earlier received a below-guideline sentence), "the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range determined under subdivision (1)." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A). An application note adds: "Under subsection (b)(2), the amended guideline range determined under subsection (b)(1) and the term of imprisonment already served by the defendant limit the extent to

relevant to a Section 3582(c)(2) reduction of sentence, including consideration of the Section 3553(a) factors, may be presumed from the record. The court did not criticize the underlying proposition that a trial court in fact should consider the guideline range as affected only by the guideline amendment, and should then apply the Section 3553(a) factors in determining whether to reduce the sentence. See id. 8

Case 3:02-cr-00246-JCH

Document 17

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 9 of 11

which the court may reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement. Specifically, if the original term of imprisonment imposed was within the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing, the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment to a term that is less than the minimum term of imprisonment provided by the amended guideline range determined under subsection (b)(1)." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 app. note 3.6 Thus, the Court may not reduce the sentence below the range provided by the amended guideline, and "in no case . . . shall the term of imprisonment be reduced below time served." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 app. note 3. III. CONCLUSION It is respectfully requested that the Court defer acting on the defendant's motion until March 3, 2008. At that time, assuming that the Sentencing Commission's decision as to the retroactivity of the November 1, 2007 amendment to the crack cocaine guidelines stands, the Government submits that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the Court should exercise its discretion to lower the defendant's sentence from 87 months' incarceration to 70 months' incarceration pursuant to the amendment. Because the defendant will have completed the modified term of incarceration as of the March 3, 2008 effective date for the retroactive application of the November 1, 2007 amendments, the Court could simply amend the judgment to impose an incarceration term of time served. The Government leaves it to the Court's discretion whether on March 3rd to honor the BOP's request for a stay of an
6

Application note 3 provides an example of this rule:

For example, in a case in which: (1) the guideline range applicable to the defendant at the time of sentencing was 41 to 51 months; (2) the original term of imprisonment imposed was 41 months; and (3) the amended guideline range determined under subsection (b)(1) is 30 to 37 months, the court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment to a term less than 30 months. 9

Case 3:02-cr-00246-JCH

Document 17

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 10 of 11

additional ten days. Respectfully submitted, KEVIN J. O'CONNOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By:

ALINA P. REYNOLDS SUPERVISORY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Federal Bar No. ct14968 CHRISTOPHER W. SCHMEISSER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Federal Bar No. CT14806 157 Church Street, 23rd Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Tel.: (203) 821-3754 Fax: (203) 773-5378 [email protected]

For:

10

Case 3:02-cr-00246-JCH

Document 17

Filed 02/29/2008

Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this the 29th day of February, 2008, I caused a copy of the foregoing Response to be sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Damian Bailey Inmate No. 14811-014 CCM Philadelphia Community Corrections Office 2nd & Chestnut St - 7th Fl Philadelphia, PA 19106 Joseph Zampano U.S. Probation Officer U.S. Probation Office 915 Lafayette Blvd. Bridgeport, CT 06604 Matthew M. Maddox, Esq. Law Offices of Matthew M. Maddox, LLC 810 Bedford St. Suite Five Stamford, CT 06901

_________________________________ By: ALINA P. REYNOLDS SUPERVISORY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

For:

CHRISTOPHER W. SCHMEISSER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

11