Summary
considering that the movant earned his GED in prison, obtained a carpentry certification through a local community college, and was sanctioned for only "two minor write-ups" in the nine years preceding his motion
Summary of this case from Concepcion v. United StatesOpinion
Criminal Action No. 3:06-CR-69
09-01-2020
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Shakeem Horatio CRAWFORD, Defendant.
Paul T. Camilletti, William J. Powell, Timothy D. Helman, U.S. Attorney's Office - Mrt., Martinsburg, WV, for Plaintiff. Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender Office, Clarksburg, WV, Jenny R. Thoma, Federal Public Defender Office, Wheeling, WV, for Defendant.
Paul T. Camilletti, William J. Powell, Timothy D. Helman, U.S. Attorney's Office - Mrt., Martinsburg, WV, for Plaintiff.
Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender Office, Clarksburg, WV, Jenny R. Thoma, Federal Public Defender Office, Wheeling, WV, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING REDUCTION UNDER THE FIRST STEP ACT
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before this Court are defendant's pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence under The First Step Act of Section 404(a) and (b) using U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(B) [Doc. 389] and defendant's counseled Supplemental Motion for Reduced Sentence Under the First Step Act of 2018 [Doc. 394]. The First Step Act applies the relief provided in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the disparity in the treatment of crack and powder cocaine offenses, retroactively to eligible defendants. Under the First Step Act, "a court that imposed a sentence for a covered offense" may "impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed." Id . at § 404(b).
To be eligible for a reduced sentence under the First Step Act, a defendant's sentence must not have been previously imposed or reduced in accordance with Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act. Id . at § 404(c). In addition, a sentence may not be reduced if the defendant has made a previous motion for a reduction under the First Step Act that was denied on the merits. Id . Furthermore, a court is not required to reduce a sentence under the First Step Act, but may do so in its discretion. Id .
A "covered offense" is defined as "a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, that was committed before August 3, 2010." United States v. Wirsing , 943 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2019).
The Fourth Circuit has confirmed that any sentence reduction under the First Step Act should be implemented pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B). Wirsing , 943 F.3d at 183-85.
The Fourth Circuit has made it clear that a reviewing court may not look to any stipulation or the relevant conduct, it is the drug quantity charged in the indictment that controls. United States v. Laurey , 791 Fed.Appx. 421 (4th Cir. 2020).
As for whether a court must hold a hearing, "[i]t is within the sound judgment of the Court to determine if an evidentiary or sentencing hearing is necessary to address the issues of a particular case." United States v. Baxter , 2019 WL 5681189, *2 (S.D. W. Va. Oct. 31, 2019) (Chambers, J.). "Whether or not a court decides to resentence a defendant, the language of the First Step Act does not require a hearing." Id . (citing Wright v. United States , 393 F.Supp.3d 432, 441 (E.D. Va. 2019) ). "Nothing in the language of the FIRST STEP Act requires the Court to have a hearing. The Court may hold a hearing if it deems [one] necessary to adequately address the issues of a particular case, or to properly consider the § 3553(a) factors, but it need not do so for every § 3582 Motion under the FIRST STEP Act." Id .
The First Step Act "grants courts statutory authority to conduct a full resentencing, in addition to the discretion to decide when doing so is appropriate. See Wright , 393 F.Supp.3d at 441. Whether or not a court decides to resentence a defendant, the language of the First Step Act does not require a hearing. See id . at 441." United States v. Spotts , 2019 WL 6521981 (S.D. W. Va. Dec. 3, 2019) (Chambers, J.).
"Judge Currie has recently considered this question and concluded that a First Step Act defendant is not entitled to a full resentencing. United States v. Shelton , 2019 WL 1598921, at *2–3 (D.S.C. Apr. 15, 2019). The Court notes Judge Currie's thorough, well-reasoned opinion and adopts her analysis of the applicable law in this case. Thus, the Court concludes that although Defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction, he is not entitled to a full resentencing. See also Wirsing , 943 F.3d at 181 n.1 (‘Defendant does not contest that his relief, if any, will be in the form of a limited sentence modification rather than a plenary resentencing.’)." United States v. Crawford , 2020 WL 95689, *2 (D.S.C. Jan. 8, 2020).
Following a trial, Mr. Crawford was found guilty by a jury of Conspiracy to Possess With Intent to Distribute "in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base," (Count 1); Aiding and Abetting the distribution of "approximately 1.17 grams of cocaine base" (Count 3); Possession with Intent to Distribute "approximately 7.0 grams of cocaine base," (Count 4); and Aiding and Abetting the Possession with Intention to Distribute "approximately 1.72 grams of cocaine base," (Count 8).
In part due to the Government having filed an information under 21 U.S.C. § 851, Mr. Crawford faced a statutory term of imprisonment of 20 years to life on Count 1 and 0 – 30 years of imprisonment on Counts 3, 4, and 8. Mr. Crawford faced "at least 10 years" of supervised release on Count 1, and "at least 6 years" on Counts 3, 4, and 8.
Under the 2007 Guidelines Manual, the base offense level for 351.96 grams of cocaine base was 32. There were no adjustments, but Mr. Crawford was found to be a career offender. Accordingly, the greater offense level of 37 applied. Mr. Crawford's criminal history points were 11, for a criminal history category of V; however, as a then-career offender, his criminal history category was automatically VI. Mr. Crawford's 2007 guideline range was thus 360 years – life. This Court sentenced Mr. Crawford to the low end of 360 months.
This Court finds that all four of Mr. Crawford's convictions are covered offenses within the meaning of the First Step Act. Furthermore, inasmuch as his prior conspiracy conviction is not a "controlled substance offense," he is not a career offender.
Mr. Crawford's statutory penalty on Count 1 is now 5 – 40 years. His statutory penalty on Counts 3, 4, and 8 is 0 – 20 years. His statutory term of supervised release is "at least 4 years" on Count 1, and "at least 3 years" on Counts 3, 4, and 8. His relevant conduct of 351.96 grams of crack cocaine produces a base offense level of 30. His criminal history category is V. Accordingly, his guideline range is 151-188 months.
Mr. Crawford has served 155 months (13 years) of actual time in custody; but factoring in his good time and program credits,9 202 months are now accounted for.
When he is released, Mr. Crawford has been approved to release to his home with his wife of 13 years, Deborah, in Philadelphia. Mrs. Crawford – and many of Mr. Crawford's family and friends – remain supportive, and are ready and able to aid his transition to lawful society. They have offered places to live, employment, and support; and they confirm how much he is missed and needed at home. Mr. Crawford's counselor at FCI Yazoo City also supports his request for First Step Act relief, based on his positive contributions there.
Mr. Crawford has been preparing for lawful employment for quite some time. He earned his GED in prison as well as an English proficiency. He has taken many courses while incarcerated pertaining to job-ready skills; including a custodial maintenance apprenticeship; courses on heating and cooling systems ("HVAC"), cabinet-making, real estate, research, and writing; and sixteen courses on financial literacy. In fact, Mr. Crawford obtained his cabinet-making certification through Holmes Community College, and his custodial maintenance apprenticeship was certified through the Department of Labor.
Mr. Crawford has also taken courses geared towards self-improvement, including completing his drug education program, psychology self-study, positive thinking, and leading by example; as well as the "9 to 5 Beats 10 to Life" course.
Presently, Mr. Crawford works as a Unit Orderly and Recreation Orderly at FCI Yazoo City, where he has earned above average work evaluations.
His behavior has been good as well. Mr. Crawford's most recent BOP Program Review reflects no disciplinary violations in the last six months. In the past nine years, he has had only two minor write-ups. In 2015, Mr. Crawford was written up for "stealing" when a corrections officer found him eating a piece of cake without express authorization to do so, despite the fact that the cake had been set out in his work assignment area for people to have. He was also written up for making a false statement in 2018. On that occasion, Mr. Crawford had reported a safety threat to corrections officers, but subsequently retracted it when pressured to do so by inmates. Because he had then given conflicting statements which could not both be true, he was charged with making a false statement.
Indeed, Mr. Crawford has been a positive influence at FCI Yazoo City, as BOP staff confirmed. Mr. Crawford's counselor stated that:
Mr. Crawford has displayed leadership in the housing unit along with his peers. He gets along well with inmates and staff alike. He has completed tasks that was presented to him. He earns a good work report and is enrolled in the Toastmaster's program at FCC Yazoo City. I support giving him the First Step Act.
Accordingly, having exceeded the low end of his guideline range in actual time spent in custody, Mr. Crawford's appropriate sentence in his case is time served. Based upon the foregoing, this Court will reduce the defendant's sentence to time served. In addition, the Court will reduce his term of supervised release of 4 years on Count 1; and 3 years of supervised release on Counts 3, 4, and 8.
Defendant's pro se Motion to Reduce Sentence under The First Step Act of Section 404(a) and (b) using U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(B) as well [Doc. 389 ] and defendant's counseled Supplemental Motion for Reduced Sentence Under the First Step Act of 2018 [Doc. 394 ] are GRANTED .
It is so ORDERED .