United States v. Salliey

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. QUINCY LAMONT SALLIEY, Defendant.

CRIMINAL ACTION No. RDB-10-0298

United States District Court, D. Maryland

February 13, 2023

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Richard D. Bennett, United States Senior District Judge.

Defendant Quincy Salliey (“Salliey”) was arrested after officers of the Baltimore Police Department searched his vehicle and discovered 47 gelcaps of heroin and a 9mm handgun. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), Salliey pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Plea Ag't ¶1, ECF No. 32.) This Court sentenced Salliey to the agreed sentence of 204 months' imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. (Judgment 1-2, ECF No. 38; Statement of Reasons 2, ECF No 39.) His projected release date is March 30, 2025. (See Gov't's Resp. Opp. 2, ECF No. 78.)

After attaining his GED and completing several self-betterment and vocational training programs, Salliey filed a Motion for Reduction in Sentence on June 30, 2021 (ECF No. 74). Salliey seeks compassionate release on several grounds, arguing that his sentence is disproportionate to his offense, that he has served a substantial percentage of that sentence, that he has been extensively rehabilitated, and that he is susceptible to Covid-19. (Def.'s Mot. 28-35, ECF No. 74.) The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). For the reasons that follow, Petitioner Quincy Salliey's Motion for Reduction in Sentence (ECF No. 74) is construed as a Motion for Compassionate Release and is GRANTED. Salliey's sentence shall be reduced to time served.

BACKGROUND

On or about May 27, 2010, plainclothes officers with the Baltimore Police Department observed an individual exit 657 Bartlett Avenue carrying a plastic bag containing narcotics. (See Plea Ag't ¶ 6a, ECF No. 32.) The individual entered a vehicle and handed the bag to Defendant Quincy Salliey (“Salliey”). (Id.) The officers searched the vehicle and found 47 gelcaps filled with heroin, $2,249.00 in cash, and a black 9mm handgun. (Id.) Following his arrest, Salliey waived his Miranda rights and admitted his ownership of the gun and the drugs. (Id.) On June 30, 2010, Salliey was charged with possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count One); possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin, a Schedule 1 controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C § 841(a)(1) (Count Two); and possession of a firearm with ammunition in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Three). (Indictment, ECF No. 1).

On January 14, 2011, Salliey pled guilty to Count One in exchange for the dismissal of Counts Two and Three. (Plea Ag't ¶¶ 1, 12.) Prior to this incident, Salliey had been convicted of four criminal offenses under Maryland law, including one charge of CDS Unlawful Manufacture and CDS Conspiracy, and three separate offenses for Possession with Intent to Distribute CDS. (Id. ¶ 6(b).) Accordingly, the parties stipulated to sentence enhancement as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), resulting in a criminal history category of VI and a final adjusted offense level of 31. See U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.4, 3E1.1. (Plea Ag't ¶ 6(b).)

These considerations yielded a sentence range of 188 to 235 months under the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines. (See Statement of Reasons 1, ECF No. 39.) Nevertheless, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 11(c)(1)(C), the parties agreed to a stipulated sentence of 204 months' imprisonment. (Plea Ag't ¶ 11.)

On March 30, 2011, this Court imposed the agreed sentence, along with five years of supervised release. (See Sentencing, ECF No. 37; Judgment 2-3, ECF No. 38.) Salliey appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Court of Appeals upheld the Defendant's sentence. (Appellate Judgment, ECF No. 50.) On May 15, 2013, the Salliey filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and a Memorandum of Law alleging a Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. (Mot. Vacate 5, ECF No. 52; Pet'r's Repl. Supp. 5-6, ECF No. 64.) On August 1, 2014, this Court denied that motion. (Aug. 1, 2014 Mem. Op., ECF No. 66.) Salliey is currently scheduled to be released from prison on March 30, 2025, and has served over ten years of his sentence. He requests compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

ANALYSIS

As Salliey has filed his motion pro se, his arguments are afforded a liberal construction. See Erickson v Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (holding that pro se filings are “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1975))); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).

The First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, established significant changes to the procedures involving compassionate release from federal prison. Prior to the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) provided the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) with sole discretion to file compassionate release motions with the Court. With the passage of the First Step Act, defendants are now permitted to petition federal courts directly for compassionate release whenever “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a reduction in sentence. The Act permits a defendant to seek a sentence reduction after he “has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Once these mandatory conditions are satisfied, this Court may authorize compassionate release upon a showing of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a reduction and after weighing the factors presented in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

I. Administrative Exhaustion Requirements

Salliey has satisfied the preconditions to filing his Motion for Compassionate Release. On April 12, 2021, Salliey submitted an “Inmate Request to Staff” addressed to the warden of his facility, requesting a reduction in sentence on the same grounds alleged in this motion. (See ECF No. 74-2.) As more than 30 days have elapsed since Salliey's request was submitted to the warden, his motion for compassionate release is properly before this Court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

II. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons

The United States Sentencing Commission is charged with defining “what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction” under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). Of relevance here, the Commission has determined that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” exist where a defendant is “suffering from a serious physical condition . . . that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide selfcare within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he is not expected to recover.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A). Similarly, a defendant who is “(i) at least 65 years old; (ii) is experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process; and (iii) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less,” faces extraordinary and compelling circumstances that may justify release. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(B). Finally, the Commission has authorized the Bureau of Prisons to identify other extraordinary and compelling reasons “other than, or in combination with” the reasons identified by the Commission. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D).

Although potentially useful guides, neither the Sentencing Commission's Guidelines nor the Bureau of Prisons' regulations constrain this Court's analysis. United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 281 (4th Cir. 2020) (holding that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is not an “applicable policy statement” for compassionate release motions filed by a defendant in the wake of the First Step Act). As Judge Blake of this Court has recognized, the First Step Act embodies Congress's intent to reduce the Bureau of Prisons' authority over compassionate release petitions and authorizes the district courts to exercise their “independent discretion to determine whether there are ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons' to reduce a sentence.” United States v. Bryant, CCB-95-0202, 2020 WL 2085471, at *2 (D. Md. Apr. 30, 2020); accord McCoy, 981 F.3d at 281 (holding that “the First Step Act allows courts independently to determine what reasons, for purposes of compassionate release, are ‘extraordinary and compelling'”). Exercising this discretion, this Court has determined that “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” justify considering Salliey's motion.

Salliey offers four potential “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to grant him compassionate release. These include: (1) the severity and disproportionality of his sentence relative to his offense; (2) the substantial portion of that sentence Salliey has already served; (3) his extensive rehabilitation; and (4) his vulnerability to COVID-19. (See Def.'s Mot. 2-4.) Collectively, this Court finds these arguments persuasive.

Salliey's contention regarding COVID-19 is unpersuasive. This Court has determined that a heightened susceptibility to COVID-19 may constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. See, e.g., United States v Hurtt, No. JKB-14-0479, 2020 WL 3639987, at *1 (D. Md. July 6, 2020). However, “the coronavirus is ‘not tantamount...