United States v. Thomas-Mathews

81 F.4th 530

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Demari Lepaul THOMAS-MATHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-1824

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Argued: June 15, 2023

Decided and Filed: August 25, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 1:21-cr-00124-1—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.

ARGUED: Annie J. Schuver, Alexander J. Noronha, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellant. Patrick J. Castle, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Annie J. Schuver, Alexander J. Noronha, Melissa M. Salinas, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for Appellant. Patrick J. Castle, OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.

Before: MOORE, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges

CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which MOORE, J., joined. NALBANDIAN, J. (pp. 547-50, delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

OPINION

CLAY, Circuit Judge.

Defendant Demari Lepaul Thomas-Mathews appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). For the reasons set forth below, the Court VACATES his sentence and REMANDS for resentencing consistent with the opinion of this Court.

I. BACKGROUND

In mid-2021, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Thomas-Mathews pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and to two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Before sentencing, the probation department completed a presentence report ("PSR") for Thomas-Mathews. Thomas-Mathews did not object to the facts set forth in the PSR. However, as discussed below, Mathews did object to the PSR's "weight attribution to cocaine base versus cocaine as an unwarranted disparity" and requested the use of a 1:1 ratio. PSR, R. 26, Page ID #118.

A. Factual Background

Thomas-Mathews experienced a challenging childhood. He avers that he was often food insecure, that his uncle physically and sexually abused him, and that he practically raised himself. Additionally, Thomas-Mathews has an extensive criminal history. His juvenile convictions include criminal sexual conduct, larceny, and drug possession. His adult convictions include drug offenses, domestic violence, and perjury in connection with a murder investigation. While serving his sentences for these crimes, Thomas-Mathews violated certain prison rules, as well as the conditions of his parole and probation.

Thomas-Mathews appeared to have turned his life around when he got out of prison in 2017. In the years that followed, he states that he "got real close with" his children, picked them up from school "every day," and coached youth football and basketball. Sentencing Hr'g Tr., R. 39, Page ID #210. He told the probation department that his proudest accomplishment was "getting a barbershop." PSR, R. 26, Page ID #111.

Unfortunately, Thomas-Mathews' trajectory took a turn for the worse when the COVID-19 pandemic struck. The pandemic apparently hurt Thomas-Mathews' professional life as a barber. In addition, Thomas-Mathews acknowledges that he did not respond well to his "schedule [being] wiped away," and that he "got back into [his] old style of living." Sentencing Hr'g Tr., R. 39, Page ID #210. It was during this time that Thomas-Mathews committed the crimes to which he pleaded guilty. Despite Thomas-Mathews returning to his old lifestyle, he still describes the positives in his life. Most notably, he represents having a strong relationship with his girlfriend and an "awesome" relationship with his two children. PSR, R. 26, Page ID #110-11. He told the probation department that he spent most of his free time with his children and coaching football.

Thomas-Mathews' guilty plea concerns two separate incidents. The first incident took place on November 22, 2020, after police officers responded to reports of a shooting at a residence in Muskegon, Michigan. When the officers arrived at the residence, they found Thomas-Mathews alone. Inside the residence, the officers found bullet holes in the wall, loaded guns, and drugs. The officers arrested Thomas-Mathews, and Thomas-Mathews posted bond two days later. The second incident occurred on April 15, 2021, when state troopers pulled Thomas-Mathews over for traffic violations and found a loaded gun and drugs in the vehicle. A grand jury indicted Thomas-Mathews on June 29, 2021 in connection with both incidents.

B. Procedural Background

Thomas-Mathews ultimately admitted to possessing the guns, and to possessing cocaine base ("crack") and powder cocaine. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and to two counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Thomas-Mathews, the government, and the district court all agree that Thomas-Mathews took responsibility for his actions; he pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility at his sentencing hearing. In addition, he has expressed interest in receiving future vocational training.

The probation department calculated Thomas-Mathews' advisory sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines. For each count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, the advisory sentencing range was the mandatory minimum sentence of five years, consecutive to any other sentence. For the count of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, the advisory sentencing range was 57-71 months in prison. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.

1. The Crack-to-Powder Ratio

Under the Guidelines, crack is about 18 times more significant to an advisory sentencing range than powder cocaine. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.8(D). Thomas-Mathews objected to the PSR's reliance on the 18:1 crack-to-powder ratio, arguing that crack cocaine "should be scored the same as cocaine on a 1:1 ratio." PSR, R. 26, Page ID #118. Thomas-Mathews then requested a downward variance "based upon the crack and powder cocaine disparity." Def.'s Sentencing Mem., R. 29, Page ID #144. Thomas-Mathews contended that the district court should "adopt the reasoning in 'Statement of the Department of Justice Before the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate' [("DOJ Statement")] and apply a 1:1 crack-to-powder-ratio in determining the sentence in this case." Id.; see DOJ Statement, R. 29-1. In the DOJ Statement, the Justice Department asserted that "the current federal cocaine sentencing structure is wrong and must be changed." DOJ Statement, R. 29-1, Page ID #158. Going further, the Justice Department asserted that "[t]he disparity in federal cocaine sentencing policy has been the most visible symbol of racial unfairness in the federal criminal justice system for almost 35 years." Id. at Page ID #152.

In his sentencing memorandum, Thomas-Mathews argued that the district court should eschew the 18:1 crack-to-powder ratio and instead apply a 1:1 ratio "because (1) the Guidelines are not tied to empirical evidence to support the recommended sentence and, (2) the Guidelines result in a sentence that is 'greater than necessary' to achieve the goals of sentencing." Def's Sentencing Mem., R. 29, Page ID #146. The government did not oppose Thomas-Mathews' request, and instead observed that "although the disparity has not been eliminated, the [district court] may consider whether it should be, and impose a sentence that reflects the [district court's] view." Pl.'s Sentencing Mem., R. 27, Page ID #123 (citing Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261, 266, 129 S.Ct. 840, 172 L.Ed.2d 596 (2009) and Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 108-110, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007)).

2. Section 3553(a) Factors

In his sentencing memorandum, Thomas-Mathews urged the district court to consider: (1) his acceptance of responsibility; (2) his employment history as a barber and desire to obtain vocational training; (3) his difficult childhood; and (4) his relationship with his children. He also urged the district court to vary downward because "the Guidelines result in a sentence that is 'greater than necessary' to achieve the goals of sentencing." Def.'s Sentencing Mem., R. 29, Page ID #146.

3. Sentencing Hearing

The district court held a sentencing hearing in late 2021. At that hearing, Thomas-Mathews and his attorney presented arguments similar to those in the sentencing memo. Thomas-Mathews' attorney highlighted Thomas-Mathews' difficult childhood, as well as his strong relationship with his children and girlfriend. He also reiterated the arguments in favor of applying a 1:1 crack-to-powder ratio. On that topic, the district court then asked, "[h]ow many times has the Congress addressed the issue of crack cocaine and powder cocaine ratio? It's at least twice . . . . Has the Congress taken up the cudgel of the Department's new position regarding one-to-one and passed a statute . . . that changes it to one-to-one?" Sentencing Hr'g Tr., R. 39, Page ID #207-08.

Thomas-Mathews then addressed the district court. He told the district court that he "take[s] full responsibilit[y] for [his] actions" and that he "created this whole situation." Id. at Page ID #209. He then highlighted his difficult childhood, and his love for and relationship with his family. He also emphasized his contributions to his community as a youth sports coach. He once again stated that he accepts full responsibility for his actions and that he would "learn [his] lesson" and "make positive better decisions" in the future. Id. at Page ID #210.

The district court then announced its sentencing decision from the bench,...