Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:06cr23
2020-04-24
UNITED STATES of America, v. Johnny Lee CHAVIS, Defendant.
Matthew P. Mattis, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney Office, Newport News, VA, for United States. Johnny Lee Chavis, pro se.
Matthew P. Mattis, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney Office, Newport News, VA, for United States.
Johnny Lee Chavis, pro se.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
REBECCA BEACH SMITH, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter comes before the court on the Defendant's Letter Motion seeking relief under the First Step Act of 2018 ("Motion"), filed on January 21, 2020. ECF No. 46. The United States responded on March 30, 2020, opposing the Motion. ECF No. 50. The Defendant filed a Reply on April 13, 2020. ECF No. 52.
I. History of the Case
On April 11, 2006, the Defendant pled guilty to Counts One and Three of the Indictment. ECF No. 11. Count One charged him with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and to Distribute 50 Grams or More of Cocaine Base and 5 Kilograms or More of Cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). ECF No. 1. Count Three charged him with Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Id.
On July 28, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 120 months on Count One and 60 months on Count Three, to be served consecutively, for a total term of imprisonment of 180 months. ECF No. 21. The Defendant was also sentenced to terms of supervised release of 5 years on each count, to run concurrently, for a total term of supervised release of 5 years. Id. On July 13, 2010, the Defendant's sentence was reduced to 81 months following a motion of the United States. ECF No. 32. The Defendant was released from prison and began his term of supervision on September 12, 2011. See ECF No. 40.
A Petition and Order on Supervised Release were filed on May 23, 2013, alleging that the Defendant violated his conditions of supervised release. ECF No. 33. On September 11, 2013, the Defendant stipulated to the violations, and his supervised release was revoked. ECF No. 40. The court sentenced the Defendant to an above-Guidelines term of 60 months imprisonment, the statutory maximum for the violations. Id.
Separately, the Defendant was charged with, and pled guilty to, Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and Distribution of More Than 100 Grams of Heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(B)(i), the underlying conduct of which constituted the violation of supervised release at issue in this case. United States v. Chavis, No. 4:12cr47, Dkt. No. 180 (E.D. Va. Feb. 11, 2013) (Davis, J.). Judge Davis sentenced the Defendant to 135 months imprisonment in that case on May 16, 2013. Id. Dkt. Nos. 215, 217. That sentence was later reduced to 108 months imprisonment. Id. Dkt. No. 309. The sentences on the 2013 conviction, No. 4:12cr47, and the revocation of supervised release in this case, No. 4:06cr23, are to be served consecutively. ECF No. 40.
II. Eligibility for Relief
The Defendant is eligible for relief under the First Step Act because Count One in this case, No. 4:06cr23, included a cocaine base offense punished under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii). United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2019). This is the case even though Count One also charged the Defendant with a powder cocaine offense, and he is serving a sentence for a violation of supervised release, not for the original conviction. See United States v. Gravatt, 953 F.3d 258 (4th Cir. 2020) (mixed counts involving cocaine base offenses are eligible for relief under the First Step Act); United States v. Venable, 943 F.3d 187, 194 (4th Cir. 2019) (defendants serving sentences for violations of the terms of supervised release are eligible for relief under the First Step Act).
III. Analysis of the Motion
The Defendant now claims that, with the 55% reduction in his sentence in this case, ECF No. 32, he "over served" his sentence on his 2006 conviction by 21 months, and he seeks to apply that over-served time to his sentence for the violation of supervised release. ECF No. 52 at 1. The Defendant's calculations are incorrect. His sentence on the original offense of conviction did not exceed any applicable statutory maximum or Guidelines range, see ECF No. 48 (PSR ¶ 90); he served the reduced sentence of 81 months and was released from prison on September 12, 2011; and he then began his five-year term of supervised release. His current sentence of 60 months is for a violation of the conditions of this supervised release. Moreover, even if the Defendant were somehow correct that he has over-served time, the court rejects the suggestion that a defendant can "bank" time against a future sentence and declines to do so here. Cf. United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59, 120 S.Ct. 1114, 146 L.Ed.2d 39 (2000) ("The objectives of supervised release would be unfulfilled if excess prison time were to offset and reduce terms of supervised release.").
See supra Part I.
Importantly, there is no change to the statutory maximum term of imprisonment for the Defendant's violation of supervised release, which is 5 years (60 months), or to his term of supervised release, which was also 5 years. Specifically, under the First Step Act, the Defendant's original conviction for 50 grams of cocaine base is now subject to a statutory maximum of 40 years imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Such an offense is a Class B felony, subject to a maximum term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release of 3 years. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559(a), 3583(e)(3). However, the Defendant's convictions for 5 kilograms or more of powder cocaine and for possession of a firearm remain Class A felonies, subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years, following a revocation of supervised release. Id. The Defendant's sentence of 60 months upon revocation remains within the statutory range.
Finally, having considered the relevant factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for supervised release violations, the court determines that the current sentence of 60 months is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, in this case. Of particular import, and included in the court's review of the relevant § 3553(a) factors at the supervised release violation hearing, is that, despite receiving a significant reduction from his original sentence in this case, within months of his release from prison, the Defendant was engaged in a conspiracy to distribute a significant amount of heroin. The court then sentenced the Defendant to the statutory maximum term of imprisonment when it revoked his supervised release, and the court finds that this sentence remains appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case. The court does not exercise its discretion to reduce the Defendant's sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. See United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 729 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding that a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 is discretionary, not required, and that the court need not recount its reasons for the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in denying such a motion).
The court detailed its reasons for the sentence at the revocation hearing on September 11, 2013. See ECF No. 39.
The Defendant pled guilty to this charge and was sentenced on May 16, 2013. United States v. Chavis, No. 4:12cr47, Dkt. Nos. 179, 215. The sentences on the 2013 conviction and the instant revocation of supervised release are being served consecutively. ECF Nos. 39, 40; see supra Part I.
See supra notes 2 & 3 and accompanying text.
Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion is DENIED . The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Memorandum Order to the Defendant, the United States Attorney, the United States Probation Office, and the Bureau of Prisons.