United States v. Turner

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KAREEM ANTOINE TURNER, Defendant.

CASE NO. 3:09-cr-00018

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION

April 20, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Kareem Antoine Turner's Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018. Dkt. 262. In Defendant's most recent filing, he argues that the novel coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic further supports his request for immediate release. Dkt. 278. Upon review of Defendant's First Step Act Motion and the parties' briefing on the motion, this Court finds that Defendant is eligible for seek relief under the First Step Act, and that Defendant has demonstrated an entitlement to a partially reduced sentence of 168 months' imprisonment—twelve months less than his original sentence—but in no event shall his sentence be less than time served.

Background

1. Underlying Criminal Charges and Sentence

On September 30, 2010, Defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to two counts of the Superseding Indictment. Dkt. 150; Dkt. 18. Defendant pleaded guilty to Count One, which charged him with conspiracy "to commit the following offenses against the United States: 1) to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, a Schedule II Narcotic Controlled Substance; 2) to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 5 Kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount [of] cocaine, a Schedule II Narcotic Controlled Substance," in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. Dkt. 150; Dkt. 18. Defendant also pleaded guilty to Count Six of the Superseding Indictment: receiving stolen firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). Dkt. 262 at 2; Dkt. 172; Dkt. 150.

Defendant's plea agreement and the presentence report ("PSR") noted that Defendant's statutory mandatory minimum sentence on Count One was 120 months. Dkt. 262 at 2; Dkt. 263 at 12; Dkt. 150 at 1. The plea agreement stated, in relevant part, as follows:

I will enter a plea of guilty to Counts 1 and 6 of the Superseding Indictment.

Count 1 charges me with conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and distribute more than 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base and 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 & 841(b)(1)(A). The maximum statutory penalty is a fine of $4,000,000 and/or imprisonment for a term of life, plus a term of supervised release. There is a mandatory minimum sentence for a term of ten years.

Dkt. 150 at 1.

The plea agreement further stipulated pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) that Defendant would be sentenced to a total of 180 months' incarceration on Counts One and Six, and to dismissal of the other counts. Dkt. 263 at 13; Dkt. 150 at 3.

The Rule 11 colloquy also addressed Count One (as well as Count Six, which will not be recited here). When asked by the Court "to summarize for the defendant the elements of the offense and the range of punishment provided for such offenses," the Government stated:

Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant is going to be pleading guilty to Counts 1 and 6 of the superseding indictment.

With regards to Count 1, the elements are as follows. It alleges a conspiracy to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine powder and 50 grams or more of cocaine base.

Mr. Turner, the elements of that charge are as follows: The United States would be required to prove that you knowingly participated in a conspiracy, conspiring with others, and that ... you entered into an agreement, either tacit or express, to do the following, and that's alleged in the indictment, possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base and also 5 kilograms or more of cocaine powder during the period alleged in the indictment, between December, 2002 and July 15, 2008.

The penalties of that offense are as follows: There's a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment, up to a maximum sentence of life. There's a maximum of $4 million fine and also a period of supervised release.

Dkt. 225-4 at 5-6.

At the Rule 11 colloquy, the Government further summarized evidence of Defendant's involvement in the conspiracy at issue in the case. This included, among other things, that "the defendant was selling at least ten ounces of crack cocaine per week and that he would obtain his cocaine from a source up in New York," that "[e]ither the defendant or somebody acting at his behalf would fly from Charlottesville to New York to pick up one or two kilograms of cocaine, as well as some cocaine base and then bring that back to Charlottesville," that "from late 2007 to June 11, 2008," other parties "would travel to New York to get one or two kilograms of cocaine from the defendant, about once a week," and that "[n]umerous witnesses would have testified at trial that they purchased various amounts of crack cocaine from the defendant and also delivered crack cocaine and powder cocaine from the defendant during the time of the conspiracy." Dkt. 225-4 at 14-15. Defendant did not challenge the Government's summation of the evidence or put on any evidence of its own. Id. at 16. When the Court asked how he pleaded to the two counts, Defendant responded "Guilty." Id.

On December 21, 2010, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C), this Court sentenced Defendant to 180 months' incarceration on Count One and 120 months' incarceration on Count Six, to run concurrently. Dkt. 262 at 2; Dkt. 172 at 2.

Defendant subsequently filed a pro se appeal, which was dismissed as untimely. Dkt. 200-201. Defendant filed several motions to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which were denied. Dkt. 188-89, 212, 234. Defendant also filed motions to reduce his sentence pursuant to Amendments 750 and 782, which were also denied. Dkt. 238, 251.

2. First Step Act Motion and Supplemental Briefing

In February 2019, Defendant filed the motion presently before the Court, seeking a reduction in sentence pursuant to the First Step Act. Dkt. 262. In April 2019, both Defendant and the Government filed responses to Defendant's First Step Act Motion. Dkt. 269, 270. The response from the Government was little more than two pages, styled as a "Motion to Dismiss" the First Step Act Motion. Dkt. 270. These were followed by Defendant's reply filed in May 2019, in further support of the Motion. Dkt. 272. In December 2019, Defendant filed a letter concerning his request for reduction in sentence. Dkt. 273. And on February 29, 2020, Defendant filed a supplemental response in further support of his First Step Act Motion. Dkt. 276.

On March 4, 2020, the Court entered an order stating that, since "the primary issue in this Motion is presently on appeal to the Fourth Circuit and awaiting decision," the Court would place Defendant's First Step Act motion in abeyance pending issuance of the Fourth Circuit's opinion in United States v. Gravatt, No. 19-6852 (4th Cir.). See Dkt. 277. At issue in that case was "whether a district court erred in determining that the defendant was not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act because he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 5 kilograms or more of powder cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base." Dkt. 277 at 1. The Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs after Gravatt was issued, and to address "any arguments the parties deem relevant to the Court's exercise of its discretion to grant a reduction in sentence under the First Step Act." Id. at 2.

On March 24, 2020—the day after the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in Gravatt, Defendant filed a combined Notice and "Renewed Request for Immediate Release in Light of Heightened Risk for COVID-19." Dkt. 278. Defendant argues that under Gravatt, he is eligible to move for relief under the First Step Act. Id. at 1-2. In addition, citing declarations from medical professionals addressing the novel coronavirus COVID-19, Defendant argues that the "seriousness of COVID-19 and the particular risk that incarcerated populations face is another reason that supports [Defendant's] immediate reduction in his sentence to time-served." Dkt. 278 at 5.

On April 2, 2020, the Government filed its Supplemental Response to Defendant's First Step Act Motion. Dkt. 287. While the Government now concedes that Defendant is eligible to move for relief under the First Step Act, id. at 8-10, it argues that Defendant has not shown an entitlement to such discretionary relief, id. at 10-13.

Defendant is currently incarcerated. The Federal Bureau of Prisons website calculates his release date will be April 4, 2022. Dkt. 287 at 3.

Legal Framework

Section 404(b) of the First Step Act, the provision under which Defendant seeks relief, states that:

Defendants Previously Sentenced.—A court that imposed a sentence for a covered offense may, on motion of the defendant, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, the attorney for the Government, or the court, impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-220; 124 Stat. 2372) were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed.

Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. The First Step Act defines a "covered offense" as "a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by [S]ection 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, that was committed before August 3, 2010." Id. § 404(a), 132 Stat. at 5222. A later provision, Section 404(c), states that "[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section." Id. § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222. In other words, the First Step Act gives the district courts discretion whether to afford...