United States v. Edmond

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. RAYFUL EDMOND, III, Defendant.

No. 4:96-CR-00203

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

July 24, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge

I. BACKGROUND

In 1996, Rayful Edmond, III pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and one count criminal forfeiture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 853.^[1] Edmond's convictions related to his conduct while incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg Pennsylvania when, from approximately January 1991 until July 1994, Edmond participated in a large conspiracy to distribute cocaine.^[2] For a commission, Edmond connected cocaine producers and their agents in Colombia with drug traffickers in the District of Columbia area, who would then resell that cocaine to others in the region.^[3] As part of that plea agreement, Edmond agreed to cooperate with the Government, but bargained for any benefit of that cooperation to be applied to the sentence that his mother, Constance Perry, was then serving.^[4] Edmond ultimately fulfilled his portion of the agreement, the Government filed a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and Constance Perry's sentence was reduced to time served.^[5]

Prior to Edmond's sentencing, a presentence report (PSR) was prepared that calculated a base offense level of 38, as the offense involved 150 kilograms or more of cocaine; the offense level was increased by two points because the offense involved firearms, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1), and by four levels because Edmond was an organizer or leader of criminal activity, pursuant to USSG § 3B1.1.^[6] The PSR applied a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 41; that, along with a criminal history category III, resulted in a sentencing guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment.^[7]

The two-level increase for possession of a firearm did not arise because of Edmond's actual physical possession of a firearm. Rather, as the PSR explained:

(I)t was reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Edmond that his fellow conspirators were using, and had used firearms to further the objects of the conspiracy, and to protect themselves, their illegal profits, and their contraband drugs. Although Edmond was not in actual possession of any firearms, nor did he direct others to use firearms during this conspiracy, there is sufficient evidence to infer that the conspiracy contemplated the use and possession of firearms as tools of the drug trade. Conspirators Michael A. Jackson and James Marshal Corbin, Jr. kept a semiautomatic “Uzi-like” close assault pistol in the oven of their apartment in Suitland, Maryland. On October 22, 1992, police recovered that weapon there, along with another semiautomatic pistol underneath the front seat of Jackson's BMW. The firearm in Jackson's care was at maximum operational readiness with a loaded magazine, a round in the chamber, and the hammer cocked.

Violence and use of firearms was within the scope of the criminal activity. In numerous wiretapped conversations between Edmond and the Colombian cocaine supplier, Osvaldo Trujillo-Blanco, aka “Chicky,” Chicky threatened to have Jackson and Corbin killed for nonpayment of their drug debts. He made frequent coded references to this each time he threatened to “put them in check” or “checkmate.” Jackson and Corbin were known to be drug dealers and of course the criminal milieu was aware of this also. Robbers regard drug dealers as appealing targets because they are likely to have a large cache of drugs or money, and because they are unlikely to complain to the police if robbed of illegal drugs and drug proceeds. In fact, on August 24, 1992, Michael Jackson returned home to his Rena Road, Suitland, Maryland apartment to discover a burglary in progress. In a wiretapped conversation on his cell phone, he telephoned his partner, Corbin, and asked Corbin to come home immediately, bring a firearm which he referred to as a “joint,” and bring help. In the recorded call from Jackson's car phone, Jackson told Corbin that the burglars had fired upon him and he had returned fire. Obviously, Jackson traveled with a loaded firearm on his person, which was corroborated by the FBI seizure of Jackson's loaded handgun from underneath the driver's seat on October 22, 1992. Indeed, on August 24, 1992, neighbors had called the police emergency number with reports of “shots fired” in the Rena Road Apartment. Further, Edmond knew that Jackson and Corbin had used violence and firearms in past criminal conduct.^[8]

Edmond had no objections to the PSR and, accordingly, the late Honorable Malcolm Muir^[9] calculated a sentencing guidelines range of 360 months to life imprisonment.^[10] After hearing from the parties, Judge Muir sentenced Edmond to 360 months' imprisonment.^[11] That sentence was to run consecutive to the life sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that Edmond was already serving.^[12]

In August 2021, Edmond filed a motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to USSG Amendment 782.^[13] The Court granted that motion and reduced Edmond's sentence to 324 months' imprisonment.^[14] Finally, in November 2022, this Court granted the Government's Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) motion based on Edmond's later cooperation with the Government and further reduced Edmond's sentence to 288 months' imprisonment.^[15]

Edmond has now filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.^[16] In that motion, Edmond argues that he is actually innocent of the two-level increase in his offense level for possessing a firearm, as the evidence was insufficient to establish that he possessed a firearm during the commission of the underlying offense.^[17] The Government responds that Edmond's motion is time-barred, as it was filed beyond the one-year limitations period, equitable tolling does not apply, and neither the amended judgment entered pursuant to Amendment 782 nor the Government's Rule 35(b) motion resets the limitations period.^[18] Finally the Government argues that, even if the motion were timely, it would fail on its merits, as a misapplication of the Sentencing Guidelines is not cognizable in a § 2255 motion, Edmond failed to raise any issue with the firearm enhancement in his direct appeal, and the enhancement was properly applied.^[19]

In his reply brief, Edmond argues that his motion is timely because it was filed within one year of the date that the Court entered amended judgments in this matter and, in any event, equitable tolling should apply based upon how long it took the Government to file a Rule 35(b) motion.^[20] He further contends that he is actually innocent of the firearm enhancement, and his motion is therefore timely.^[21] Finally, Edmond asserts that his claim is cognizable in a § 2255 motion, as the sentencing enhancements applied to him have been rendered invalid by an intervening change in the law.^[22]

This matter is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Edmond's motion as time barred.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Timeliness of Motion

As a general matter, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions must be filed within one year of the date upon which a defendant's conviction becomes final.^[23] “If a defendant does not pursue a timely direct appeal to the court of appeals, his or her conviction and sentence become final, and the statute of limitation begins to run, on the date on which the time for filing such an appeal expired.”^[24] In federal criminal matters, a defendant has fourteen days to file an appeal after the judgment is entered.^[25]

Judge Muir issued the original judgment in this matter on July 24, 1997.^[26]Edmond did not file a direct appeal, meaning that his conviction became final fourteen days later, on August 7, 1997. Consequently, Edmond's § 2255 motion was due on or before August 7, 1998. Edmond did not file his motion until March 8, 2023 at the earliest,^[27] and it is therefore clear from the record that his motion is facially untimely.

Nevertheless, as recounted above, Edmond provides three reasons why he believes the motion is timely or, at the least, not time barred. First, Edmond argues that the relevant judgment(s) for determining the timeliness of his motion are the amended judgments entered in April and November 2022, not the original judgment entered in 1997.^[28] Second, Edmond asserts that he is actually innocent of the sentencing enhancements applied in his case, and his actual innocence operates as a gateway to consider even an untimely § 2255 motion.^[29] Finally, he contends that equitable tolling is appropriate based on the Government's conduct in filing a late Rule 35(b) motion.^[30] The Court will evaluate these arguments in turn.

1. Timeliness in Light of the Amended Judgment

The Court first addresses Edmond's assertion that his motion is timely in light of the amended judgment entered by this Court on November 8, 2022 in response to the Government's Rule 35(b) motion. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has not considered whether an amended judgment, entered pursuant to the grant of a Rule 35(b) motion, is a final judgment for purposes of a § 2255 motion, the circuit courts that have considered this issue have, for two broad reasons, universally rejected the notion that such an amended judgment resets the limitations period to file a § 2255 motion.^[31]

First 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b) “states that although a district court may ‘modify' a ‘sentence to...