United States v. Russell

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RODNEY DAVID RUSSELL, Defendant.

No. 2:20-CR-293-MHH-SGC

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama

November 23, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Court seldom writes opinions regarding the criminal sentences that it imposes, but this case warrants a written opinion. Mr. Russell is a drug addict, and his addiction led him to commit a serious crime. To fund his addiction, Mr. Russell agreed to help distribute methamphetamine. Over the course of approximately three months, Mr. Russell bought and re-sold between one pound and two kilograms of methamphetamine weekly, no doubt feeding other individuals' drug addictions. (PSR, pp. 7-9; Doc. 184, pp 14-16).^[1]A total of four kilograms of methamphetamine were attributed to Mr. Russell for his role in the drug distribution conspiracy. (PSR, p. 12).

After Mr. Russell's arrest on November 10, 2020, (Docket Entry Nov. 10, 2020), Magistrate Judge Cornelius detained Mr Russell, (Docs. 17, 21). A few days later, Mr. Russell asked Judge Cornelius to consider releasing him to CareCenter Ministries to enter a 12-month treatment program. (Docs. 29, 29-1). On November 24, 2020, Judge Cornelius released Mr. Russell to the custody of the CareCenter. (Doc. 32, p. 2). Three months later, Mr. Russell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. (Docket Entry, Feb. 24, 2022).

The Court began Mr. Russell's sentencing hearing on January 19, 2022. (Docket Entry, Jan. 19, 2022). Before the hearing, Mr. Russell submitted a letter from the Director of the CareCenter. (Doc. 113-1, pp. 1-3). The director explained that Mr. Russell had graduated from the center's first-year program and that Mr. Russell was eligible for a two-year leadership academy. (Doc. 113-1, p. 1). Volunteers at the center wrote letters to the Court describing Mr. Russell's efforts to help other residents of the center overcome their addictions and obtain important skills like reading. (Doc. 113-1). Several of the individuals who wrote letters for Mr. Russell spoke on his behalf at his sentencing hearing. (Doc. 184). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court postponed sentencing to allow more time to consider Mr. Russell's request for a significant departure from his guideline range of 108-135 months. (Doc. 113; Doc. 184, pp. 16-18).

The sentencing hearing resumed on September 27, 2022. (Doc. 185). Once again, the director of the CareCenter spoke for Mr. Russell. The director provided a letter that described Mr. Russell's leadership role at the Center and explained that Mr. Russell was responsible for administering random drug tests to the center's residents. (Doc. 185, pp. 5-6). In short, in just under two years, Mr. Russell graduated from center resident to center leader.

The United States acknowledged Mr. Russell's accomplishments and asked the Court to impose a 65-month sentence. (Doc. 184, p. 13; Doc. 185, p. 8). The United States argued that Mr. Russell needs consequences to help him avoid relapse and to punish him for the lives he harmed by distributing methamphetamine. (Doc. 185, p. 8). The United States asserted its belief in the BOP and “what it [would] be able to do for Mr. Russell.” (Doc. 185, p. 9).

Based on its consideration of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court imposed a sentence of time served and five years of supervised release. (Doc. 185, p. 9). The sentence is a substantial departure from Mr. Russell's guideline range and from the reduced sentence that the United States proposed, but the Court finds that the sentence is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of sentencing set forth in § 3553(a)(2).

The sentence provides Mr. Russell with needed drug treatment, correctional treatment, and vocational training in the most effective manner. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). Through his association with the CareCenter over the past two years, Mr. Russell has attained and maintained sobriety, found a vocation to which he has devoted himself, and gained a mentor who “gets on to [him] pretty strong.” (Doc. 185, p. 7). Since he began using illegal drugs in 1996, Mr. Russell has had only one other significant period of sobriety. (PSR, pp. 17-18). Mr. Russell's work with the CareCenter greatly enhances his ability to steer clear of illegal substances and provides the necessary structure to allow Mr. Russell to continue his recovery. Incarceration in the BOP does not. In the BOP, Mr. Russell likely would have access to illegal substances, and the BOP's drug treatment programs cannot rival the intensive, consistent treatment and supervision that Mr. Russell has through the CareCenter.^[2]

As noted, Mr. Russell's criminal conduct is a product of his drug use, so his ability to refrain from using drugs goes hand-in-hand with the sentence's ability to protect the public from future crimes that Mr. Russell might commit. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). If history is an indicator, then successful drug treatment in the most effective manner will preclude future criminal conduct by Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell has no prior felony convictions; he has a criminal history score of zero. His criminal history consists of a municipal court conviction for driving under the influence when he was 21 years old; he is now 45. (PSR, pp. 3, 14);^[3]see United States Sentencing Commission, Recidivism of Federal Drug Trafficking Offenders Released in 2010, p. 55, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2022/20220112Recidivism-Drugs.pdf (last visited Nov. 23, 2022) (“[T]he two indicators most clearly correlated with recidivism among drug trafficking offenders were criminal history and age. Generally, as offenders' criminal history points increased, the recidivism rate likewise increased,” and the older the offender, the lower the rearrest rate.); see also U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Five Things about Deterrence, p. 2, https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf (last visited Nov. 23, 2022) (explaining that data shows “a steep decline” in criminal behavior “at about age 35”).^[4] Generally, methamphetamine trafficking offenders with sentences ranging from five to ten years have a higher rate of rearrest, though by a relatively small margin, than offenders sentenced to fewer than six months in prison. United States Sentencing Commission, Recidivism of Federal Drug Trafficking Offenders Released in 2010, p. 113, https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2022/20220112Recidivism-Drugs.pdf (last visited Nov. 23, 2022).

True, a sentence of substantial incarceration would reflect the seriousness of the offense and provide just punishment for the offense, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), but the cost of the punishment would be remarkably high. A 67-month sentence would cost taxpayers approximately $200,000, (PSR, p. 22 ¶ 101), and would provide taxpayers no meaningful benefit. Five plus years in prison would not deter criminal conduct because Mr. Russell has no incentive for criminal conduct while he is sober, and his sobriety is a condition of his continued association with the CareCenter and his court supervision.^[5]In fact, given the availability of drugs in prison, the stressors attendant to imprisonment, and the absence of robust treatment programs in prisons, incarceration for the sake of punishment alone serves only to make the public more, not less, vulnerable to future crimes that Mr. Russell might commit if he relapsed. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C); see U.S. v. Rodriguez, 724 F.Supp. 1118, 1119 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (“The rehabilitation of a drug addict by his act of will is no mean accomplishment .... The imposition of a year's jail sentence would serve no...