United States v. Sanchez

581 F.Supp.3d 503

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Robinson SANCHEZ, a/k/a "Guillermo Nieves,", Defendant.

04-CR-6143L

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed January 18, 2022

Bradley E. Tyler, Frank H. Sherman, Katelyn M. Hartford, United States Attorney Office, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff.

DECISION AND ORDER

DAVID G. LARIMER, United States District Judge

Defendant Robinson Sanchez ("Sanchez") was sentenced by this Court on May 11, 2012, over eight years ago, principally to an aggregate term of 360 months plus one day. That sentence was many months below the sentence recommended by the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines") of 468-495 months. Also, the final sentence was five years less than anticipated at Sanchez's plea proceeding years earlier because of Sanchez's cooperation and the Government's 5K motion under the Guidelines.

Sanchez has now filed, pro se , a motion for a sentence reduction, sometimes referred to as a motion for compassionate release (Dkt. #434), under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He seeks a reduction to a sentence of time served followed by five years of supervised release. The Government has filed a thorough Response in opposition to the motion (hereinafter "Response") with an attached Exhibit 1. (Dkt. #440).

The Court has reviewed the papers filed on the pending motion, as well as all of the relevant prior filings in the case, including the Fourth Superseding Indictment (Dkt. #163), the Plea Agreement (Dkt. #442), the transcript of the plea proceeding (Dkt. #330), the Presentence Report (Dkt. #366) ("PSR"), the Government's Sentencing Statement and 5K motion (Dkt. #357), the Government's Letter (Dkt. #364) to the Court in support of its 5K motion, and the transcript of the sentencing proceeding on May 11, 2012 (Dkt. #369).

Defendant's Sanchez's motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) is in all respects DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Sanchez was arrested along with several co-defendants in a hotel in Greece, New York, on August 26, 2004. The arresting officers found, in two rooms, over three kilograms of cocaine, approximately 160 grams of heroin, drug paraphernalia, three semi-automatic pistols and $30,600 in cash.

Eventually Sanchez and others were indicted in a Fourth Superseding Indictment (Dkt. #163). In Count One, Sanchez was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and 5 kilograms or more of cocaine. Conviction on that count subjected him to a term of imprisonment of 10 years to life imprisonment. In Count Three, Sanchez was also charged with possession with intent to distribute over 500 grams of cocaine on August 26, 2004. Conviction on that count subjected him to a possible sentence of five to 40 years imprisonment. In Count Four, he was charged with possession with intent to distribute over 100 grams of heroin. That subjected him to a minimum of five years and a maximum of 40 years imprisonment.

Sanchez was also charged in Count Six, Seven and Eight with three firearms offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Two of these offenses allegedly occurred on August 20, 2004 and the third, in Count Eight, occurred on August 26, 2004. Conviction on all three of these counts together would have required a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Conviction on any one firearms offense required a mandatory five-year consecutive sentence; a conviction on any two firearms offenses resulted in a mandatory 25-year sentence consecutive to the first firearms offense and any other sentence.

PLEA AGREEMENT

After extensive negotiations involving several jurisdictions, Sanchez pleaded guilty in this Court pursuant to a detailed Plea Agreement to Counts Four, Six and Eight of the Fourth Superseding Indictment. Count Four involved the heroin charge and Counts Six and Eight involved two separate firearms offenses, that is possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

To be sure the Plea Agreement called for a significant term of imprisonment, but it also provided several substantial benefits to Sanchez. The Government and Sanchez agreed in the Plea Agreement that the Guideline range was 468 to 495 months imprisonment based upon the agreed-upon factual basis which included an equivalent under the Guidelines of five to 15 kilograms of cocaine. All three of the counts to which Sanchez pleaded contained mandatory minimum terms. Count Four required a mandatory five-year minimum term, Count Eight a mandatory five-year minimum term to life and Count Six a mandatory twenty-five-year minimum term to life. The Plea Agreement was structured pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) with an agreed-upon sentence of 420 months (35 years).

But, as mentioned, there were several crucial provisions in the Plea Agreement that benefitted Sanchez. First, Count One, the narcotics conspiracy count, Count Three, a second drug count, and Count Seven, a third firearms offense, were to be dismissed. Obviously, the conviction on those counts could have entailed even greater punishment, including life imprisonment.

In addition to the charges in the Western District of New York, Sanchez faced significant pending charges in the Eastern District of New York, as well as in Kings County, New York. Because of Sanchez's agreement to plead guilty, the prosecution pending in the Eastern District of New York, which included charges of racketeering, conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, cocaine and heroin, was to be dismissed. (Plea Agreement, ¶ 21). In addition, it was anticipated that Sanchez would plead guilty to a Kings County indictment charging him with attempted murder and related offenses. Because of Sanchez's agreement to plead guilty in the Western District of New York, it was agreed that any sentence he received for that attempted murder conviction would run concurrently with the sentence imposed in the Western District of New York. It turned out that Sanchez did plead in that jurisdiction and was sentenced to a nine-year term of imprisonment, concurrent to the sentence in the Western District of New York.

When Sanchez pleaded guilty in the Western District of New York, he knew what he was doing. He pleaded to avoid an almost certain sentence of life imprisonment if convicted of all counts in the Western District of New York, the Eastern District of New York and Kings County.

In addition, the Plea Agreement contained a cooperation provision, that if the defendant provided substantial assistance, the Government agreed to make a 5K motion under the Guidelines for a reduction from the otherwise agreed-upon 420-month sentence. As it turned out, over several years, Sanchez did provide some cooperation and at the time of his sentencing in this Court on May 11, 2012, the Government moved under 5K of the Guidelines for a reduction of five years and recommended a 360-month-plus-one-day sentence, which is what the Court imposed. Defendant's cooperation and the Court's sentence resulted in a five-year reduction of Sanchez's sentence.

MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE: 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

Sanchez seeks compassionate release from the two sentences imposed on Counts Six and Eight for Section 924(c) violations. According to the law in effect when Sanchez was sentenced, those sentences were "stacked" that is they were imposed consecutively, five years on Count Eight and twenty-five years consecutive on Count Six.

In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act of 2018. Pub. L. 115-391 ; 132 Stat 5194 ("The Act"). The Act became effective on December 21, 2018. The Act changed previous authority and provided that the stacking of sentences for offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) only applied to repeat offenders "after a prior conviction" [under 924(c)] has become final." The Act, § 403.

Sanchez previously sought relief in this Court based on enactment of the First Step Act (Dkt. #427) and in Decision and Order entered March 17, 2020 (Dkt. #432), this Court denied Sanchez's motion for relief under the First Step Act for several reasons. First, Sanchez was precluded by the Plea Agreement from appealing the sentence imposed and also, principally, because the First Step Act by its terms was not to be applied retroactively.

Essentially, Sanchez seeks once again the same relief from the consecutive sentences but uses the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as his vehicle for obtaining the relief. Sanchez claims his circumstances constitute compelling and extraordinary circumstances which the Court, in its discretion, should determine that the prior sentences should be reduced to time served.

Although the sentencing issue on the Section 924(c) counts forms the bulk of Sanchez's motion, he does reference the global COVID pandemic. (Dkt. #434, pp. 18-19). His argument basically is that the pandemic subjects him to a "risk of death or severely debilitating illness." Sanchez also claims that he has matured while incarcerated and become a "responsible adult" and a person of "sound character." (Dkt. #434, p. 2).

COMPASSIONATE RELEASE STATUTE: 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

To obtain relief under the statute, a defendant must fully exhaust his administrative remedies and must present "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warranting a reduction of a previously-imposed sentence. In addition, and most significantly, the Court must review and consider all of the sentencing factors listed at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to determine whether this particular defendant warrants release to the community. The burden is on the inmate to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons to modify or reduce the sentence.

In this case, the Government concedes that Sanchez has exhausted his administrative remedies. The Government, however, asserts that relief should be denied for several reasons. First, this Court has already ruled that the First Step Act of 2018 is not retroactive when it denied Sanchez's prior motion in March 2020 ...