United States v. Tellier

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBIN SCOTT TELLIER, Defendant.

No. 92 Crim. 869 (LGS)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

May 10, 2022

INDICATIVE RULING

Lorna G. Schofield United States District Judge.

Defendant a sixty-one-year-old inmate at FCI Schuylkill, moves for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The government opposes the motion. Because Defendant has appealed a decision denying his request for resentencing, the Second Circuit currently has jurisdiction over Defendant's sentence. Therefore, this ruling is made as an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(a)(3). For the reasons discussed below, the Court indicates that, if it had jurisdiction, it would grant Defendant's motion for a sentence reduction to time served.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant has been incarcerated for almost three decades since he was thirty-one years old. Defendant was the primary leader of a criminal organization known as the “Tellier Organization” that operated in the tri-state area at least through the late 1970s through the early 1990s. Defendant's incarceration began when he was arrested and detained in February 1992 on state larceny charges. In 1994 Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (“RICO”), a substantive violation of RICO, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), interstate transportation of stolen property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 and conspiracy to commit interstate transportation of stolen property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Tellier v. United States, No. 20 Civ. 422, 2021 WL 4556239, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2021). The jury found that Defendant had committed all of the charged racketeering predicate acts, which included murder, attempted murder and robbery. Id. Defendant's sentencing was subject to the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) “stacking” rules and mandatory sentencing guidelines. In November 1994, Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, four consecutive terms of imprisonment of twenty years, and concurrent terms of imprisonment of twenty years, ten years and five years. Id.

On direct appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction in 1996, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. United States v. Tellier, 83 F.3d 578, 579 (2d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 955 (1996). Defendant's initial habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was denied in 2006. Tellier v. United States, No. 97 Civ. 7897, 2006 WL 2135785, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2006). In 2010, Petitioner attempted to file a second habeas petition, which the Second Circuit denied. Tellier v. USP Canaan Warden, No. 10-5245, Dkt. No. 18 (2d Cir. Mar. 16, 2011). In 2019, the Second Circuit granted Defendant leave to file a successive § 2255 petition on the ground that his Hobbs Act robbery conspiracy convictions could no longer serve as predicates to his § 924(c) convictions in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019). United States v. Tellier, No. 16-1904, Dkt. No. 50 (2d Cir. Nov. 5, 2019). Defendant's successive § 2255 petition was granted in part and denied in part. Tellier, 2021 WL 4556239, at *1. Defendant's § 924(c) convictions were vacated, but the court declined to resentence Defendant. Id. at *6. On November 30, 2021, Defendant filed a notice of appeal of the court's order declining to resentence him. Notice of Appeal, Tellier v. United States, No. 21-2951 (2d Cir. Nov. 30, 2021), Dkt. No. 1. On February 4, 2022, Defendant filed a motion in the appellate court for a certificate of appealability, which remains pending. Mot. for Certificate of Appealability, Tellier, No. 21-2951 (Feb. 4, 2022), Dkt. No. 23.

On December 17, 2021, Defendant filed the instant motion for sentence reduction, with letters of support from more than thirty family members, friends and current and former inmates. The government opposes the motion.

II. STANDARD

Defendant moves for a reduction of his term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as modified by the First Step Act of 2018. Under that provision, a court may reduce a sentence upon a finding that (1) an inmate exhausted his administrative remedies by requesting relief from prison authorities; (2) “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and (3) “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Keitt, 21 F.4th 67, 71 (2d Cir. 2021). The most closely relevant United States Sentencing Guidelines policy statement counsels that a reduction is not proper unless “the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2).^[1] Under the First Step Act, a court may exercise its “discretion in determining what are extraordinary circumstances.” United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228, 234 (2d Cir. 2020). The defendant bears the burden of showing he is entitled to a sentence reduction. United States v. Jones, 17 F.4th 371, 375 (2d Cir. 2021). If the defendant establishes extraordinary or compelling circumstances, a court must still consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors “to the extent they are applicable.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also Keitt, 21 F.4th at 71. Those factors include “(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;” (2) “the need for the sentence imposed . . . to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;” (3) “the need for the sentence imposed . . . to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant;” (4) “the need for the sentence imposed . . . to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;” and (5) “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2), (6); see also Keitt, 21 F.4th at 71.

III. DISCUSSION

The parties do not dispute that Defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies. For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that extraordinary and compelling circumstances warrant a sentence reduction, that Defendant is no longer a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community and that the sentencing factors set forth in § 3553(a) weigh in his favor.

A. Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances

Defendant has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons that justify a sentence reduction to time served. “[A] district court's discretion in this area -as in all sentencing matters-is broad.” Brooker, 976 F.3d at 237. “Where no single factor alone may justify release, the total circumstances may still rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling reasons for release.” United States v. Resto, No. 8 Cr. 757, 2021 WL 1109467, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although “[r]ehabilitation . . . alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason, ” it is a factor that district courts may consider in deciding whether to reduce a sentence. Brooker, 976 F.3d at 238. Here, Defendant's rehabilitation, severe prison conditions and duration of his sentence already served together satisfy the extraordinary and compelling standard.

The weight of evidence of Defendant's rehabilitation is remarkable, especially given his life sentence. Since 1994 when he was sentenced, Defendant has been a model inmate, committed to self-improvement and helping others inside and outside his prison community. During his incarceration, Defendant has completed his GED, a 915-hour paralegal program, over forty vocational and educational programs, 900 hours of religious courses, has become a certified drug and alcohol treatment specialist, taken several college courses and diligently studied the law. In addition to his educational pursuits, Defendant has held numerous work details, maintained good work performance evaluations, and dedicated substantial time and effort to creative endeavors such as screenwriting, film, novel writing and art. Defendant's commitment to self-improvement is reflected in the BOP Progress Report, which highlights his positive rapport with supervisors, good work performance evaluations, active participation in programming and commitment to personal growth.

While incarcerated in some of the country's most dangerous facilities, Defendant incurred only two minor disciplinary infractions for (1) mailing a letter to be sent to a third party and (2) using another prisoner's phone code. Courts have granted compassionate release on similar disciplinary records. See, e.g., United States v. Ramirez, No. 98 Cr. 927, 2021 WL 5233512, at *8-10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2021) (granting compassionate release motion where defendant completed significant number of hours of accredited programs and committed four minor infractions while incarcerated).

As a “jailhouse lawyer, ” Defendant successfully overturned two of his own convictions and has served as an advocate for numerous other inmates. Many current and former inmates stated in letters that Defendant never turned away anyone who sought his legal assistance and accepted nothing in return for his services, which inmates report is uncommon in the prison environment. One individual noted that Defendant used his own prison income and was charged by the minute...