Opinion
1:14-cr-00214
02-08-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RUDIUS A. BROWN, Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER [RESOLVING DOCS. 1206 & 1253]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Finding that Defendant Rudius Brown does not present extraordinary and compelling reasons calling for a sentence reduction, the Court DENIES Defendant's pro se compassionate release motion.
Defendant's Court-appointed counsel did not augment Defendant's pro se motion. Doc. 1246. In addition, with this Order, the Court GRANTS the Government's extension motion. Doc. 1253.
Defendant Brown generally argues that this Court erred when it classified him as a Career Offender.
Defendant's Johnson v. United States argument fails. Johnson is not relevant to Defendant's sentence because this Court sentenced Defendant Brown under U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines (“Guidelines”) § 4B1.1(a), and not the Armed Career Criminal Act. The “Guidelines are not subject to a due process vagueness challenge, ” like the statutory Johnson claim.
576 U.S. 591 (2015).
Doc. 1255 at 16.
Beckles v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 886, 897 (2017).
Defendant Brown also argues that this Court wrongly classified him as a career offender under the Guidelines by miscounting his prior offenses. Under Guidelines § 4B1.1(a), the career offender enhancement applies when a defendant has “two prior felony convictions of [ . . . ] a controlled substance offense.” Defendant's three Ohio drug trafficking convictions in Case No. CR535313 (arrest Dated: March 10, 2010), Case No. CR538911 (arrest Dated: April 6, 2010), and Case No. CR547761 (arrest Dated: February 26, 2011) qualified him for the enhancement. Even though these three convictions were sentenced together, “same-day sentencing counts as a single offense only if there is no ‘intervening arrest' between the offenses.” Here, as noted above, an arrest separated each prior drug offense.
PSR at 16-17. Defendant's motion acknowledges that he was arrested on these dates. Doc. 1246-1 at 2-3.
United States v. Patton, 517 Fed.Appx. 400, 403 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2)). Because Defendant's three drug convictions qualified him for the career offender enhancement, the Court does not address his argument related to the Failure to Comply conviction in Case No. CR483655.
Since Defendant does not present extraordinary and compelling reasons, the Court does not consider the application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors.
See United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2021) (allowing compassionate release denial when any 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) prerequisite not met).
IT IS SO ORDERED.