IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) No. 02 CR 200-1

)

v. ) Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

)

TROY LAWRENCE )

TROY LAWRENCE’S MOTION TO REDUCE HIS LIFE SENTENCE 

PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 404 AND 603 OF THE FIRST STEP ACT

I am writing this letter of recommendation on behalf of Troy [Lawrence] . . . 

I know Troy to be a mature, middle aged man who has lived according to the 

institution rules for a long time. Mr. Lawrence is a positive force . . . 

mentoring younger prisoners, and being a model of consistence by receiving his 

GED, taking college courses, and participating in many vocational programs. 

Troy has also proved to be a hard and reliable worker as an Orderly . . . I 

am confident . . . Troy Lawrence would quickly become a productive member 

of society. He has served a sufficiently long sentence . . . and deserves the 

chance to re-unite with his family. 

 --E.A. Earwin, (Former) Associate Warden at Florence Penitentiary 

Defendant TROY LAWRENCE’s road to a mandatory life sentence began when he 

was just 17 years old. On three occasions when Lawrence was a juvenile, Chicago Heights 

police arrested him for selling $10 “dime” bags of cocaine; he pled guilty and was sent to 

bootcamp for young offenders. A decade later in 2003, Troy Lawrence was federally indicted 

in a drug conspiracy. The federal prosecutor filed a 851 Enhancement, maintaining Troy’s 

chronologically and qualitatively minor drug priors required him to forfeit the entire balance 

of his life’s freedom. The government’s 851 Enhancement left presiding Judge Wayne 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 1 of 29 PageID #:7912
1

Anderson no choice but to impose a “profoundly sad” sentence of life imprisonment. The 

Court lamented:

[M]aybe there is a day in the future when, because of the social 

problems that led to some of this, Congress will change the law 

and liberate lots of people who were incarcerated during a time 

when Congress chose to pass laws that take people out of society 

when they have committed certain deeds.

Sent. Tr. 33. 

America’s crack laws have changed significantly during Lawrence’s 18 years of 

incarceration. Most recently, Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 authorized district 

courts to reduce crack sentences when the statutory penalty provisions of the Fair Sentencing 

Act (FSA) would have applied had the FSA been in effect at the time of the original sentencing.

Just as our drug policies have evolved over the years, so too has Troy Lawrence. He

has come a long way from the kid selling $10 dime bags. And he has come a long way from 

the man who led a drug ring in Chicago Heights. According to former Associate Warden of 

USP Florence, Lawrence is a “positive force” who “deserves the chance to reunite with his 

family.”1

For these reasons, and as further explained below, DEFENDANT TROY 

LAWRENCE, by his counsel MIANGEL CODY and TALISHA GRIFFIN, respectfully 

moves the Court to reduce his life sentence to 120 months on Counts 1, 17, 24, 35, 37, and 

38, pursuant to Section 404(b) of the First Step Act. As to Count 25 (vicarious firearm 

possession), Mr. Lawrence further moves the Court to reduce his 300-month sentence to 60-

months consecutive, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by § 603 of the First 

 1 Letter from Associate Warden Earwin, dated July 22, 2016, attached as Exhibit A. 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 2 of 29 PageID #:7913
2

Step Act. He understands that his 60-month sentence on Count 18 will remain consecutively 

stacked. A total sentence of 20 years imprisonment is sufficient, but not greater than necessary 

for this particular defendant, on these particular facts, in this particular case. 

I. THE FACTS 

A. Low-Hanging Fruit: Troy Lawrence’s 1993 Teen Drug Convictions

Troy Lawrence grew up in a muted, grey environment of concrete and despair in 

Chicago Heights, Illinois. In the south suburban Chicago community, reputed as one of the 

poorest in the country, Lawrence lived in a pervasive fog of poverty where not much beyond 

arm’s reach could be seen or attained.2 At 17, Lawrence dropped out of high school after 

completing his junior year. For Chicago Heights police, young Troy Lawrence was lowhanging fruit. In the fall of 1992, 17-year-old Lawrence was repeatedly arrested by the same 

two local police officers: Anthony Bartolomei and David Basile.3 On October 7, 1992, after 

observing Troy “toss an object to the ground,” Officers Bartolomei and Basile reportedly 

found him with small baggies containing fewer than 15 grams of powder cocaine. A 

subsequent state plea transcript states:4

 2 Dominic Candeloro & Barbara Paul, CHICAGO HEIGHTS: AT THE CROSS ROADS OF THE 

NATION 140-41 (2004) (Among steep industrial decline, commercial collapse, “white flight,” and 

increasing unemployment rates among the East Side’s African American population, Chicago Heights 

“presented the image of a classic urban ghetto.” Even more troubling is that “[at] a time when the city

was facing the most difficult problems in its history, its leaders were extorting bribes for contracts . . 

. and protection money from drug dealers.”) 

3 Cook County State’s Attorney Notice of Plea, dated Sept. 9, 1993. State court documents 

pertaining to Lawrence’s predicates will be attached as Exhibit B to this Motion. 

4 Transcript of Change of Plea Hearing at 10, People v. Lawrence, Nos. 92 C6 61535-02, 93 CR 

03918-01, 93 C6 60073-01 (Cook Cty. Cir. Ct. Sept. 7, 1993).

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 3 of 29 PageID #:7914
3

One month later in November 1992, the same two police officers Bartolomei and 

Basile set up Lawrence, who sold officers a $10 baggie of cocaine.5 The state court plea 

transcript states: 

While conducting “surveillance” in December 1992, officers Bartolomei and Basile 

again arrested 17-year-old Lawrence for “placing something in an overhan[g] of the porch,” 

which records indicate was a raisin-sized $10 bag of cocaine.6

 5 Id. at 11.

6 Id. at 12. 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 4 of 29 PageID #:7915
4

A teenaged Lawrence pled guilty to all three $10 drug offenses on the same day in 

September 1993. Lawrence was sentenced to four years in the state department of corrections, 

he was released after completing 120 days in boot camp.7

B. Above the Law: The Proliferation of Chicago Heights Police Corruption 

in the 1990s.

In the early 1990s, the only thing more potent than the poverty in Chicago Heights was 

its corrupt police force. The same year that Chicago Heights officers arrested 17-year-old Troy 

Lawrence for selling cocaine dime bags in a police-orchestrated sting, that same police force 

accepted tens of thousands of dollars of bribe money to protect its local drug kingpins. Indeed, 

while a teen Troy Lawrence sat in state custody for selling $30 worth of cocaine, five Chicago 

Heights police officers were convicted of drug conspiracy, money laundering, and fabricating 

 7 Id. at 15-16. In 2019, Lawrence was selected to be featured in a national public education 

campaign about the federal Three Strikes Drug Law. The Court can listen to a recording of Mr. 

Lawrence telling his story on the project’s website here: 

https://www.thirdstrikecampaign.com/home/troy-lawrence

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 5 of 29 PageID #:7916
5

evidence.8 Some officers even admitted that they faked $10 drug stings and planted evidence 

to bolster arrests. For instance, in scenarios strikingly similar to Troy Lawrence’s juvenile dime 

bag arrests, Chicago Heights police sergeant Allen Vehrs and officer Rick Coulom admitted

fabricating evidence that they had bought $10 in cocaine to justify an arrest.9 Sergeant Vehrs, 

who was federally prosecuted, admitted that he planted a dimebag of cocaine on a suspect and 

was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison.10 In the same federal case, Officer Coulom 

was sentenced to just two years’ probation. A third officer, James Zerante, also admitted 

fabricating drug evidence and was sentenced to 6 months’ probation.11

In a separate 1993 federal corruption case, Chicago Heights officers George Werner 

and George Sintic were convicted of money laundering and drug conspiracy.12 Federal 

prosecutors proved the officers were involved in a multi-decade conspiracy that began in the 

late 1970s when they provided information to a drug dealer about the activities of police and 

competing drug dealers. The officers also bought cocaine from a drug kingpin and sold it to a 

drug dealer in Chicago Heights.13

Chicago Heights police corruption infected the highest ranks of the force. Deputy 

Chief Sam Mangialardi landed in his own federal drug and corruption case in 1993.14 Chief 

 8 Mary Sue Penn, 5677 2 Suburb Cops Guilty in Drug Conspiracy, Cʜɪᴄᴀɢᴏ Tʀɪʙᴜɴᴇ, Aug. 4, 1992, 

available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-08-04/news/9203100074_1_drug-conspiracyfred-foreman-trafficker.

9 Matt O’Connor, 2nd Officer Admits Case Was Bogus, Chicago Tribune, May 10, 1993, available at

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-03-10/news/9303190786_1_drug-house-cocaine-narcotics. 10 Id.; see also United States v. Vehrs, No. 93 CR 20 (N.D. Ill.) 11 United States v. Vehrs, No. 93 CR 20 (N.D. Ill.) (Chicago Heights police officer prosecution). 12 Penn, supra note 8; O’Connor, supra note 9; see also United States v. Werner, No. 92-cr-00128 

(N.D. Ill.).

13 Id. 

14 See McCann v. Mangialardi, 337 F.3d 782, 783 (7th Cir. 2003).

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 6 of 29 PageID #:7917
6

Mangialardi corruptly accepted $10,000 per month from reputed drug kingpin Otis Moore to 

divert police away from Moore’s drug empire and to harass investigating federal agents.15 That 

drug kingpin, Otis Moore, eventually committed suicide by shooting himself in the head on 

the front steps of the Chicago Heights Police department. Moore, who’d begun cooperating 

with federal authorities, was wearing a federal wire that recorded his death. For his part, Chief 

Mangialardi was found guilty of racketeering, extortion and narcotics conspiracy and 

sentenced to 10 years in prison; he was released from prison in 2003.16

Chicago Heights police officer David Basile, who repeatedly arrested young Lawrence, 

was eventually promoted to sergeant where he led the department’s narcotics unit. Basile built 

his career entrapping minor(ity) drug offenders with, quite literally, macadamia nuts, oregano, 

and basil. In a 2003 news report, Sergeant Basile bragged that his officers entrap addicts into 

the costly criminal justice system, using nothing more than nuts and ordinary food seasonings 

packaged to look like narcotics:

Early Thursday afternoon, four Chicago Heights police officers opened a jar 

of macadamia nuts and an assortment of Italian spices and poured them onto 

tables. . . . When chipped into rock-size balls, the macadamia nuts are the 

spitting image of crack cocaine. A mix of oregano, sage, parsley and rosemary 

resembles marijuana. Carrying tiny plastic bags of each would-be substance, 

undercover sheriff’s officers posed as drug dealers Thursday at 15th Street 

and Fifth Avenue. Within minutes, three people were arrested. Each paid 

 15 Deborah Horan & Todd Lighty, Ex-Drug Dealer Worked for FBI on Night He Died, Cʜɪᴄᴀɢᴏ

Tʀɪʙᴜɴᴇ, June 13, 2003, available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-06-

13/news/0306130140_1_fbi-agents-police-officers-corrupt-cops.

16 Also in 1993, the mayor of Chicago Heights and two city council members were federally 

convicted of racketeering, extortion, and bribery. Chicago Heights mayor Charles Panici received more 

than $600,000 in kickbacks. See United States v. Marshall, 75 F.3d 1097, 1103 (7th Cir. 1996).

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 7 of 29 PageID #:7918
7

$10 to $20 for bags of macadamia nuts they believed were crack, Basile 

said.17

Sergeant Basile acknowledged his macadamia-nut ruse wholly fails to reduce drug crime along 

the Chicago Heights Fifth Avenue corridor, admitting “it will only keep the streets on the 

city’s depressed East Side quiet for a few days.”18 Instead, Sergeant Basile’s trap rather 

effectively kept poor people precisely that: Poor. The average penalty for entrapped addicts is 

approximately $1,000 in fines and court costs. No substance abuse treatment is offered. 

Sergeant Basile bragged: “We have a lot of return customers. We have arrested the same people 

in back-to-back weeks.”19

C. A “Profoundly Sad Thing”: The Federal Prosecution & Sentencing of 

Troy Lawrence 

On July 16, 2002, Mr. Lawrence was charged in a multi-count Indictment that alleged 

various violations of federal drug laws and related offenses.20 For purposes of this motion, 

Mr. Lawrence moves to reduce his life sentence on the following counts: 

• Count One: Conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance including 5 

kilograms or more of mixtures and substances containing cocaine and 50 

grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2; 

• Count Seventeen: Possession with intent to distribute 10.9 grams of crack 

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2;

• Count Twenty-Four: Possession with intent to distribute 227 grams of crack 

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2;

 17 Phil Rockrohr, Chicago Heights, Cook County Police Conduct Drug Sting, Northwest 

Indiana Times, July 18, 2003, available at https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/chicago-heightscook-county-police-conduct-drug-sting/article_d8bebea9-c360-5cf7-9a02-1d788318b880.html

18 Id.

19 Id. 

20 A table that details Troy’s charges and the sentences imposed for each count is attached as 

Exhibit C.

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 8 of 29 PageID #:7919
8

• Count Thirty-Five: Possession with intent to distribute 4446 grams of 

cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C § 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2; 

• Count Thirty-Seven: Possession with intent to distribute 496.4 grams of 

mixtures and substances containing cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841 § 

(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2;

• Count Thirty-Eight: Possession with intent to distribute 324.2 grams of 

crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

United States v. Lawrence, et al., 2 CR 200-1, Indictment (Doc. No. 172).

On June 25, 2003, the Government filed notice that it would seek statutory enhanced 

penalties pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 on Counts 1, 17, 24, 35, 37, and 38, if Lawrence 

proceeded to trial and was found guilty. (Doc. No. 467). On December 18, 2003, a jury found

Lawrence guilty. 

In my gut, in my heart, the—the decision in my mind was, ‘Should Troy 

Lawrence be sentenced to life or should he receive some lesser sentence[?]’ . . . 

But the debate in my mind as a trial judge had to end when I thought—

when I realized that the [851] statute didn’t give me any choice[.]

 –Judge Wayne R. Andersen

Two people were handcuffed in the courtroom at Troy Lawrence’s 2006 sentencing: 

Mr. Lawrence and the sentencing judge. Per the PSR, Lawrence’s criminal history was minimal:

Criminal History of Troy Lawrence

Offense Age Sentence

Possession of 30 grams of 

cocaine

13 6 months of probation

Possession of 15 grams 

cocaine

17 3 years IDOC suspended; 

served 120 days bootcamp

Delivery of a 1 gram of 

cocaine

17 4 years IDOC suspended; 

served 120 days bootcamp

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 9 of 29 PageID #:7920
9

Possession with intent to 

deliver less than 1 gram of 

cocaine

17 4 years IDOC suspended; 

served 120 days bootcamp

Driving on a suspended 

license

20 Supervision

Driving on a suspended 

license

21 Supervision

Driving on a suspended 

license

21 Supervision

PSR at 12-15

Troy Lawrence’s only adult convictions were traffic violations and his drug predicates 

occurred when he was a juvenile and involved minimal drug quantities. Yet, Lawrence faced 

the most severe recidivist drug penalty when he stood before Judge Anderson for sentencing. 

The government’s 851 Enhancement meant the Court was required to impose a mandatory 

life sentence. Judge Anderson reiterated several times throughout the hearing that his 

discretion in sentencing was being “driven” by statute, specifically by 21 U.S.C. § 851. Sent. 

Tr. 33. Understanding it would not change anything, Judge Anderson stated that, if given the 

discretion, he would not have sentenced Troy Lawrence to life. Instead,

I believe a reasonable sentence would have been, obviously, in 

excess of 30 years but less than 40 years, something that would 

have given this young man who was just a kid – just a kid in life 

a chance to, obviously, think about what he has done for a long 

time, punish him in a way that sends a message to everyone else 

that if you get caught or you do these things, you are going to sit 

for a long time and wreck your life but not close off the possibility 

that he can – he can come back to society someday.

Sent. Tr. 32. 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 10 of 29 PageID #:7921
10

Judge Anderson imposed a “profoundly sad” life sentence on Counts 1, 17 24, 35, 37, 

and 38 (drug counts).21 Mr. Lawrence was sentenced to a concurrent term of 48 months 

imprisonment on Counts 11, 16, 21, 23, 27, and 36 (the phone counts). The Court sentenced 

Lawrence to a concurrent term of 120 months’ imprisonment on Counts 19 and 26 (felon-inpossession counts). On Count 18 (a 924(c) charge), Mr. Lawrence received a consecutive 

sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment. On Count 25 (a second 924(c) charge for vicarious gun 

possession), Mr. Lawrence received a consecutive, stacked sentence of 300 months 

imprisonment.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed Lawrence’s convictions and sentence in United States v. 

Seymour, 519 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2008). The United States Supreme Court denied Mr. 

Lawrence’s petition for writ of certiorari. Seymour v. United State, 555 U.S. 993 (Nov. 2, 2008).

II. THE LAW

A. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010

Prior to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), an offense involving 50 grams or 

more of crack cocaine triggered a 10-year mandatory minimum and a statutory maximum of 

life imprisonment. An offense involving 5 to 49.9 grams of crack cocaine triggered a 5-year 

 21 At his original sentencing, Counts 1, 24, and 38 required a life sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) because: (a) the convictions involved a conspiracy to 

possess and distribute 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance that contained cocaine or 50 

grams or more of a mixture or substance that contained crack, and (b) Mr. Lawrence had two prior 

felony drug offenses. On Count 17 and 35 a life sentence was not required because Count 17 involved 

10.9 grams of crack and Count 35 involved 4446 grams of cocaine, bringing them under the purview 

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B)(ii) or 841(b)(1)(B)(iii). Despite no life sentence being required on Counts 

17 and 35, the government sought a life sentence on those counts. Lawrence, 02-cr-00200. (Doc. No. 

467-2 at 4).

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 11 of 29 PageID #:7922
11

minimum sentence and a statutory maximum of 40 years of imprisonment. Dorsey v. United 

States, 567 U.S. 260, 266 (2012).

Section 2 of the FSA amended § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) by striking “50 grams” and inserting 

“280 grams” and amended § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) by striking “5 grams” and inserting “28 grams”. 

Public Law 111-220; 124 Stat. 2372, § 2. Accordingly, post-FSA, it takes 280 grams of crack 

cocaine to trigger § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii)’s 10-year mandatory minimum and 28 grams to trigger § 

841(b)(1)(B)(iii)’s 5-year mandatory minimum. Dorsey, 567 U.S. at 269. The Supreme Court 

determined the FSA applied to any defendant who had not been sentenced as of the Act’s 

effective date: August 3, 2010. Id. at 281. The FSA did not apply retroactively to defendants 

sentenced prior to August 3, 2010. Id. 

B. The First Step Act of 2018 

The First Step Act (“1SA”) of 2018 legislatively authorized district courts to reduce 

pre-FSA crack penalties retroactively for “covered offense[s].” Specifically, § 404(a) of the 

First Step Act defines a covered offense as “a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the 

statutory penalties for which were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 

2010 (Public Law 111-220; 124 Stat. 2372), that was committed before August 3, 2010.” 

Section 404(b) then states: “[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 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 12 of 29 PageID #:7923
12

Sentencing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-220; 124 Stat. 2372) were in effect at the time the 

covered offense was committed.”22

In addition, § 401 of the First Step Act changed the definition of a predicate offense 

necessary to trigger the enhanced penalties of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 841(b)(1)(B) from 

a prior conviction for a “felony drug offense” to a prior conviction for a “serious drug felony.” 

A “felony drug offense” was defined as an offense with a maximum term of 10 years or more, 

regardless of the sentence actually imposed, whereas a “serious drug felony” is a “felony drug 

offense” where the defendant actually served a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.

III. DISCUSSION

In 2003, Troy Lawrence faced a mandatory life sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851.

If he were standing before Your Honor today for the exact same offense with the exact same 

criminal history, Lawrence could not face any recidivist enhancement because he does not 

have any “serious drug felony” convictions to trigger the increased penalties of § 851. We 

might reasonably agree that is not fair.

Troy Lawrence pursues two avenues for relief under the First Step Act: First, pursuant 

to Section 404(b), Mr. Lawrence moves the Court to reduce his life sentence to 120 months 

on Counts 1, 17, 24, 35, 37, and 38. Second, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(as amended 

 22 There are only two limitations to the Court’s ability to impose a reduced sentence. First, the 

defendant cannot receive a reduced sentence if the sentence was imposed or previously reduced in 

accordance with the amendment made by sections 2 and 3 of the FSA. Second, if the Court has already 

rejected a motion filed under § 404 of the Fair Sentencing Act “after a complete review of the motion 

on the merits” the defendant cannot ask for a second bite at the apple. First Step Act § 404(c). Neither 

exception applies to Mr. Lawrence’s case, as he has never received or been denied a Section 404 

reduction. 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 13 of 29 PageID #:7924
13

by § 603 of the 1SA), he moves the Court to reduce his 300-month stacked sentence to 60 

months on Count 25 for vicarious gun possession. This Motion will discuss Mr. Lawrence’s 

arguments in turn. 

A. The Crack Counts 1, 17, 24, 38: Defendant Troy Lawrence is Eligible 

for a Reduced Sentence Pursuant to the Plain Language of Section 

404(b) of the First Step Act.

Mr. Lawrence is eligible for a reduced sentence under § 404 of the First Step Act 

because his “covered offense” violated a federal criminal statute for which the penalties were 

reduced by the Fair Sentencing Act. A “covered offense” refers to the statute of conviction, 

not the defendant’s specific conduct. United States v. Shaw, 957 F. 3d 734 (7th Cir. Apr. 28, 

2020); see also United States v. Smith, 954 F.3d 446 (1st Cir. 2020); United States v. Jackson, 945 

F.3d 315, 320 (5th Cir. 2019); United States v. McDonald, 944 F.3d 769, 772 (8th Cir. 2019); 

United States v. Beamus, 943 F.3d 789, 791–92 (6th Cir. 2019); United States v. Wirsing, 943 F.3d 

175, 185–86 (4th Cir. 2019).

Here, Lawrence’s offenses were committed before August 3, 2010. Lawrence and his 

co-defendants were charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or 

more of cocaine and cocaine base, a violation of the 2003 version of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). 

The Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties for violations of 21 U.S.C. §

841(b)(1)(A). Therefore, this Court is authorized to impose a reduced sentence under § 404 of 

the First Step Act. 

In fact, Your Honor has already granted First Step Act relief on Count 1 to Lawrence’s 

co-defendants Andre Lawrence (Doc. No. 1875) and Andre Seymour (Doc. No. 1926).

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 14 of 29 PageID #:7925
14

B. Additional Drug Counts 35 and 37: The Court also has the power to

reduce Lawrence’s life sentence on Counts 35 and 37, which were noncrack counts. 

 

Troy Lawrence’s mandatory life sentence is a relic of old, unfair crack penalties. As 

discussed above, the First Step Act allows the Court to rectify that. The question then 

becomes: What can and should the Court do with Lawrence’s life sentence on Count 35

(4446 grams of cocaine powder) and his life sentence on Count 37 (496 grams of cocaine 

powder)? The mandatory nature of Lawrence’s life sentence on other charges may have

obviated the sentencer’s need for protracted discussion or consideration on Counts 35 and 

37. Today, the penalties on Counts 35 and 37 can and should also be reduced to achieve a 

packaged sentence that is “sufficient but not greater than necessary.” 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).

In granting Lawrence’s First Step Act motion, the Court may discretionarily reduce 

his life sentences on Count 35 and 37 because the sentencing-package doctrine “permits a 

court to resentence a defendant on non-vacated counts of conviction in order to effectuate 

its original sentencing intent after other counts have been vacated.” United States v. Myers, 

No. 91 CR 463-5, 1996 WL 718513, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 3, 1996); see also Pennsylvania v. 

Goldhammer, 474 U.S. 28, 29-30 (1985) (permitting resentencing on non-vacated counts after an 

appeal where some counts of conviction were affirmed and others vacated); United States v. 

Reynolds, 919 F.2d 435, 439 (7th Cir. 1990) (implementing the “sentencing package” 

doctrine).

The sentencing-package doctrine recognizes that district judges do not sentence

defendants on each count in a vacuum, particularly when multiple counts involve the same

or overlapping conduct. Rather, judges consider the total punishment in fashioning an

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 15 of 29 PageID #:7926
15

appropriate sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1 – 3D1.5; U.S.S.G. §§ 5G1.1, 5G1.2 (separate

sentence to be imposed on each count, but the aggregate result constitutes “the total

sentence”).

In the case of United States v. Medina, No. 05-cr-058, DE 1466 (D. Conn. July 17,

2019), the district court granted 1SA relief and agreed with the sentencing package argument 

advanced here. The court reasoned as follows: 

Nowhere in that mandate does it say that the court may only impose a

reduced sentence on the covered offense. A fair reading of the statute

requires only that the court, in imposing a reduced sentence, apply sections 2

and 3 as though they were in effect at the time of the covered offense.

Congress did not say “impose a reduced sentence on the covered offense as if

sections 2 and 3 were in effect.” It could have done so but did not.

Id. (emphasis added). 

Once a court concludes that a defendant was convicted of a “covered offense” and

is thus eligible to have his sentence reduced, the existence of other non-crack counts does not

undermine the eligibility conclusion because the overall sentence is part of a package. There

is abundant authority for this proposition. See e.g. United States v. Williams, No. CR 3:02-548-

03-CMC, 2019 WL 3251520, at *2 (D.S.C. July 19, 2019) (“Essentially, because the court 

originally fashioned a sentence as a whole for all convictions, his eligibility on Count 1 under 

the First Step Act means the court has the authority and discretion to unbundle the sentence 

and re-sentence on all counts.”); United States v. Johnson, No. 01-CR-543, 2019 WL 2590951

(N.D. Ill. June 24, 2019) (In First Step Act proceedings, the Court reduced defendant’s

sentence on all three counts—including the count that involved only cocaine—from 360

months’ imprisonment to 262 months.); United States v. Zapata-Vicente, 01-cr-061, DE 159

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 16 of 29 PageID #:7927
16

(E.D. Va. Aug. 8. 2019) (holding same); United States v. Biggs, 2019 WL 2120226, at *1, 3 (N.D.

Ill. May 15, 2019) (Holding: where defendant was sentenced to concurrent 360-month terms

for a crack offense and a § 922(g)(1) felon-in-possession offense, court reduced both

sentences to 180 months; “[a]s with any sentencing, the court considers multiple counts

together; indeed, the guidelines require the court to use a combined offense level for all

counts”); United States v. Black, No. 3:04-cr-100, 2019 WL 2402969 (E.D. Va. June 7, 2019)

(reducing Black’s sentence on all three of his counts of conviction—(1) possessing cocaine, 

(2) being a felon who possessed a firearm, and (3) distributing crack—under the First Step

Act because his crack count was a covered offense).

C. Stacked Gun Count 25: This Court should reduce Troy Lawrence’s 924(c) 

stacked, consecutive sentence on Count 25 from 300 months to 60 

months. 

In Count 25, Mr. Lawrence was charged with vicariously possessing a firearm in 

relation to his drug offenses. Because the government charged Lawrence with two 924(c) 

counts, his gun sentences were mandatorily stacked. He received a 60-month sentence on 

Count 18 (gun count) and a consecutive 300-month sentence on Count 25 (second gun count). 

The First Step Act contains an important shift in the 924(c) stacking provision. Prior 

to the First Step Act, a single § 924(c) count carried a five-year minimum sentence that must 

be served consecutively. An additional § 924(c) count required a stacked, consecutive 25 years 

in prison, even though that gun possession occurred during the same course of conduct as the 

original count. As part of the First Step Act, Congress eliminated the consecutive stacking 

previously required for violations of § 924(c) and clarified that § 924(c) counts can only be 

stacked if the second offense occurs after a final conviction on the first offense. § 403(a), 132 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 17 of 29 PageID #:7928
17

Stat. at 5221-22. The First Step Act’s 924(c) modifications were not made retroactive. As a 

result, prisoners like Lawrence are serving lengthy and grossly disproportionate 924(c) 

sentences that are a function of when they were prosecuted (pre-First Step Act) rather than 

what they were prosecuted for. 

Mr. Lawrence now asks the Court to reduce his 300-month sentence on Count 25. He 

pursues two, alternative grounds for relief on Count 25. First, if the Court concludes Lawrence 

has committed a covered crack offense under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act, then the 

sentencing package doctrine allows this Court to reconsider and reduce his sentence on Count 

25 in the context of 404(b) proceedings when fashioning the total sentencing penalty he should 

face. See Wright v. United States, No. 4:95-CR-39, 2019 WL 3046096, at *1-2, 7 (E.D. Va. July 

11, 2019) (reducing stacked 924(c) sentence as part of sentencing package in 404(b) First Step 

Act proceedings). Alternatively, Lawrence moves to reduce his 300-month sentence on 

Count 25 because “[t]he dramatic change to § 924(c) sentences constitutes an extraordinary 

and compelling reason” for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. 

Arey, No. 5:05-CR-00029, 2020 WL 2464796, at *5 (W.D. Va. May 13, 2020).

These arguments will be addressed in turn. 

1. Because Lawrence’s crack counts are covered offenses under 

Section 404(b) of the First Step Act, the sentencing-package 

doctrine allows the Court to reduce his 300-month sentence on 

Count 25. 

The sentencing package doctrine allows the Court to reduce Lawrence’s 300-month 

sentence on Count 25. In Wright v. United States, the district court first concluded the defendant 

was eligible for First Step Act relief based on his crack offenses. The district court then

followed the sentencing package doctrine to reduce the Wright defendant’s his sentence on the 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 18 of 29 PageID #:7929
18

stacked § 924(c) counts. 2019 WL 3046096, at *1-2, 7 (E.D. Va. July 11, 2019). As to the 

stacked gun counts, the court reasoned: 

Since Petitioner Wright is eligible for a new sentence for his drug counts, the 

Court may impose a new sentence on the gun counts as well . . . . The court 

therefore finds that the FIRST STEP Act’s change to the mandatory 

minimums of § 924(c) applies to Petitioner Wright’s new sentence. 

Wright v. United States, 425 F. Supp. 3d 588, 598 (E.D. Va. 2019). Similarly in this case, 

because the First Step Act authorizes the Court to reduce Lawrence’s sentence for his crack 

cocaine “covered offense” and because his sentence is a total package, the Court may reduce 

Lawrence’s sentence on Count 25 to fashion a total sentence that is sufficient but not greater 

than necessary.

2. Alternatively, the Court should reduce Lawrence’s 300-month 

sentence on Count 25, pursuant to Section § 3582(c)(1)(A),

because “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances warrant a 

reduction.

Section § 3582(c)(1)(A) provides this Court with an alternative statutory avenue to

correct Lawrence’s disproportionate sentence on his stacked gun counts. Section 603 of the 

First Step Act amended § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow a defendant to move a sentencing court for 

modification of a sentence based on “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” First Step Act 

of 2018, § 603. 

Although the First Step Act § 403(a) did not make its remedial anti-stacking provisions 

retroactive, several district courts have reasoned that “the First Step Act’s change in how 

sentences should be calculated when multiple § 924(c) charges are included in the same 

indictment constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason” under § 3582(c)(1)(A). United 

States v. Bryant, No. 95-cr-202, 2020 WL 2085471, at *3 (D. Md. Apr. 30, 2020); United States 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 19 of 29 PageID #:7930
19

v. Redd, ––– F.Supp.3d at ––––, 2020 WL 1248493 (E.D. Va. March 16, 2020), at *6; United 

States v. Young, No. 2:00-CR-00002-1, 2020 WL 1047815, at *8 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 4, 2020) 

(“The court finds that the drastic change effected by the First Step Act’s amendment of § 

924(c) constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)”); United States v. Maumau, No. 2:08-CR-00758-TC-11, 2020 WL 

806121, at *7 (D. Utah Feb. 18, 2020) (finding “that the changes in how § 924(c) sentences 

are calculated is a compelling and extraordinary reason to provide relief on the facts present 

here.”); United States v. Haynes, No. 93 CR 1043 (RJD), 2020 WL 1941478, at *15 (E.D.N.Y. 

Apr. 22, 2020) (finding “that the FSA’ elimination of the § 924(c) sentencing weaponry that 

prosecutors employed to require [a “stacked” § 924(c) sentence] is an extraordinary and 

compelling circumstance warranting relief under § 3582(c)”); United States v. Arey, No. 5:05-

CR-00029, 2020 WL 2464796, at *5 (W.D. Va. May 13, 2020) (same). 

In addition to the unwarranted disparity between pre-1SA§ 924(c) stacked sentences 

and post-1SA 924(c) sentences, a number of courts have found the disparity in sentences plus 

the documented rehabilitation efforts of a prisoner sufficient extraordinary and compelling 

reasons for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A). See e.g. United States v. Chan, 2020 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 56232, at *15 (N.D. Cal. March 31, 2020) (finding Chan’s “rehabilitation efforts 

in combination with the amendments to [§ 924(c)’s] stacking provisions. . . demonstrate[s] 

extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce his sentence”); United States v. Owens, 2020 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 61460, at *9 (S.D. Cal. March 20, 2020) (finding “extraordinary and compelling 

reasons exist for a reduction in Owen’s sentenced based on the changes in how § 924(c) 

sentences are calculated” and “combined with the evidence of Owens’ rehabilitation”); United 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 20 of 29 PageID #:7931
20

States v. Wade, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65373, 1 (D.C. Cal. April 13, 2020) (reducing defendant’s

§ 924(c) sentences “based on her exceptional personal growth, and the ‘injustice of facing a 

term of incarceration’ several decades ‘longer than Congress now deems warranted.’”). 

Here too, Mr. Lawrence’s disproportionate 25-year sentence on Count 25 presents 

extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A).23

Because the Court is authorized to reduce Mr. Lawrence’s life sentence for his drug offenses

and his stacked 30-year sentence for vicariously possessing a firearm during said offense, the

next question is should the Court reduce Lawrence’s total sentence; and if a reduction is 

warranted, how much? 

D. Troy Lawrence has earned a reduced sentence when post-sentencing 

factual and legal developments and 3553(a) factors are considered. 

1. The 2018 Guidelines Calculations 

At Lawrence’s 2003 sentencing, the PSR concluded “the defendant was personally 

involved in the packaging of at least 1.5 kilograms of crack cocaine,” resulting in a base offense 

of 38. (PSR at 6, line 173) Lawrence received a two-point enhancement for protected location, 

four-point leadership enhancement, and two-point obstruction enhancement. Lawrence’s total 

offense level was 46 which, combined with criminal history category VI, resulted in a guideline 

range of life imprisonment. 

 23 Mr. Lawrence has properly exhausted all administrative remedies under Section 

3582(c)(1)(A). On January 8, 2020, Mr. Lawrence filed a request for a reduction of sentence pursuant 

to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). On January 15, 2020, the Warden denied Mr. Lawrence’s request 

directing Mr. Lawrence to “address this matter with the court for the Northern District of Illinois.” 

See Exhibit D. 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 21 of 29 PageID #:7932
21

Under the current sentencing guidelines, Troy Lawrence’s base offense level for 1.5 

kilograms of crack is 32. He continues to receive a two-point enhancement for protected 

location, four-point leadership enhancement, and two-point obstruction enhancement. His 

criminal history category remains VI, resulting in an advisory guidelines range of 360 months 

to life. He requests a reduced total sentence of 240 months’ incarceration. 

2. History of Troy Lawrence 

When Troy Lawrence was just 17 years old —a juvenile under current Illinois law—he 

sold/possessed raisin-sized, fractional gram quantities of cocaine. Lawrence acquired three 

state convictions for possessing/delivering minimal quantities of cocaine within a three-month 

time span to Chicago Heights officers who were targeting Lawrence. Two of the convictions 

were for less than 1 gram of cocaine—analogous to the weight of a raisin. Outside of those 

three teen convictions, traffic violations are Lawrence’s only other infractions. Prior to 

Lawrence’s life sentence, his longest term of imprisonment was 120 days in young offender

bootcamp.

Despite such minimal criminal history, the prosecutor maintained Lawrence’s 

chronologically and qualitatively minor drug convictions required him to forfeit his entire life’s 

freedom pursuant to an enhancement under 851, due in part because Lawrence exercised his 

right to trial. Lawrence fully accepts responsibility and admits that he led a drug conspiracy 

and vicariously possessed (but did not use) firearms during that conspiracy. The prosecutor 

contended, Troy Lawrence’s prior teenage convictions for cocaine delivery rendered him a 

serious recidivist. Although Lawrence was a young adult—27 years old—when he committed 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 22 of 29 PageID #:7933
22

his federal drug crime, his juvenile convictions for fractional quantities of cocaine are 

predicates for his life sentence. 

2. Current Characteristics and the Rehabilitation of Troy Lawrence 

I’m ready to be a father to my children. I’m ready to take on the responsibility 

of being there for my mother and making her last days . . . as pleasant and 

peaceful as possible. I’m ready to be a positive, productive citizen and to lead 

by example. . . . And I’m ready to fulfill my purpose with a new light that I 

found through prison.

–Statement of Troy Lawrence

He has served a sufficiently long sentence of 14 years ... and deserves the 

chance to reunite with his family.

–Statement of E.A. Earvin, Associate Warden, USP Florence, CO

Mr. Lawrence requests that the Court listen to his audio recorded statement reflecting 

on his life sentence and rehabilitation, which is published as part of a national storytelling 

series The Third Strike Campaign: https://www.thirdstrikecampaign.com/home/troy-lawrence

There are three components to a successful release plan. First, a successful reentry 

must begin with demonstrated rehabilitation. Troy Lawrence did not let his sentence deter him 

from taking advantage of BOP opportunities to better himself. Six short months after he was 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 23 of 29 PageID #:7934
23

sentenced to life, he received his G.E.D.,24 and shortly thereafter, he began working as an 

orderly.25 In the span of one year, Lawrence completed approximately 500 hours of computer 

skills training and over 200 hours of additional educational programming.26 In 2013, Lawrence 

attained what is perhaps his most notable educational achievement, completing a total of 1,455 

hours of vocational training in Business Management.27 Troy Lawrence has proven that, when 

given access to positive and productive opportunities, he consistently makes an active choice 

to better himself and others around him. 

As a result, Mr. Lawrence received an unprecedented letter recommending clemency 

from Associate Warden E.A. Earwin at USP Florence.28

In his recommendation letter, the Warden describes Lawrence as “a positive force . . . 

mentoring younger prisoners, and being a model of consistency.” He states, “I am confident, 

if granted Clemency, Troy Lawrence would quickly become a productive member of society. 

He has served a sufficiently long sentence . . . and deserves the chance to reunite with his 

 24 BOP Inmate Skills Development Plan & Inmate Data, Exhibit E. 

25 Id.

26 Id. 27 Id.

28 Letter from Associate Warden E.A. Earwin, Exhibit A. Sadly, Mr. Lawrence was not granted 

clemency before President Obama left office. 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 24 of 29 PageID #:7935
24

family,” thus confirming Lawrence poses no threat to the community or himself.

Second, a successful release plan must include a stable support structure which 

facilitates community reintegration and employment. In 2016, Troy applied for and was 

accepted to participate in the CARA Program, a “best-in-class job training and placement 

provider, for individuals reentering the community.”29 The Cara Program has agreed to 

provide “comprehensive training, assistance with permanent job placement and critical 

support services to assist [Mr. Lawrence] in achieving a life of self-sufficiency.”30

Third, a successful release plan must also include familial and community support. Troy 

Lawrence is the father of five children and maintains involvement in their lives. Mr. Lawrence 

also maintains a very close relationship with his mother Farra Lawrence who is now retired 

after working for almost 30 years in a pharmaceutical factory. He looks forward to 

 29 The Cara Program, available at http://www.thecaraprogram.org/about/mission-andphilosphy (last accessed Oct. 6, 2016). A full description of the Cara Program is available at 

http://www.thecaraprogram.org/.

30 Cara Acceptance Letter, Exhibit F.

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 25 of 29 PageID #:7936
25

reconnecting with his family. “[P]rison was the . . . thing to get me on the proper path, and it’s 

time to give back what [has] been given to me.”31

3. Need to Avoid Unwarranted Disparities 

The remedial purpose of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 is to address sentence 

disparities. When looking at Lawrence’s co-defendants sentences and officers from Chicago 

Heights Police Department, Troy Lawrence’s life sentence is grossly disproportionate. Among 

the twenty-five individuals charged with being involved in the narcotic conspiracy, Lawrence 

was the only one who received a life sentence and he is the only co-defendant who remains 

incarcerated. In fact, this Court already granted First Step Act relief to Lawrence’s codefendants Andre Lawrence, Andre Seymour and Kent Clark. See United States v. Andre 

Lawrence, 02 CR 200-22, Doc. No. 1877 (order granting reduction in sentence to time served 

under Section 404 of First Step Act); United States v. Kent Clark, 02 CR 200-11, Doc. No. 1892 

(order granting relief under First Step Act). 

 31 Recorded statement of Troy Lawrence, available here: 

https://www.thirdstrikecampaign.com/home/troy-lawrence (last accessed March 31, 2020)

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 26 of 29 PageID #:7937
26

V. CONCLUSION

Troy Lawrence’s mandatory life sentence is not the handiwork of a federal judge. He 

is not serving a mandatory life sentence because a judge found him to be a violent person, a 

drug recidivist, or an irredeemable societal toxin. No federal judge’s appraisal of him ever 

factored into his permanent banishment. It is simply the coincidence of time – and not the 

severity of his crime – that now buttresses Lawrence’s life sentence. Yet, that fact alone is not 

the most troubling factor in favor of a reduced sentence. When Troy Lawrence was just 17 

years old — a juvenile — he sold/possessed raisin-sized, fractional gram quantities of cocaine. 

Later in his federal drug case, the prosecutor maintained Lawrence’s chronologically and 

qualitatively minor drug convictions required his life sentence. Judge Andersen reluctantly 

rubberstamped the life penalty, but only after calling it “a profoundly sad thing.”

Mr. Lawrence fully accepts responsibility and admits that he led a drug conspiracy and 

vicariously possessed firearms during that conspiracy. He asks the Court to look to his earnest 

record of rehabilitation as well. Even with no certainty that he would ever be released, 

Lawrence has spent the last 18 years making something of his life. 

WHEREFORE the First Step Act grants the district court authority to reduce 

sentences imposed under the excessively-harsh penalty structure that Congress has now 

renounced. Defendant Troy Lawrence is eligible for a sentence reduction under Sections

404(b) and 603 of the First Step Act. He has certainly earned such a reduction and respectfully

asks that this Court reduce his total term of imprisonment to 240 months as follows:

A. Reduce his life sentence to 120 months on Counts 1, 17, 24, 35, 37 and 38, such 

sentences to run concurrent to each other and to run consecutive to Counts 25 and 18; and 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 27 of 29 PageID #:7938
27

B. Reduce his 300-month sentence on Count 25 to 60 months, such sentence to 

run consecutive to all other counts. 

C. Mr. Lawrence understands that his 60-month sentence on Count 18 shall 

remain intact and shall run consecutive to all other counts. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ MiAngel Cody 

MIANGEL CODY

 /s/ Talisha Griffin 

TALISHA GRIFFEN

TDC LAW OFFICE 

1325 S. Wabash Ave. Suite 305

Chicago, IL 60605

 Counsel for Troy Lawrence 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 28 of 29 PageID #:7939
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned, MiAngel Cody, an attorney with The Decarceration Collective Law 

Office, hereby certifies that on May 27, 2020, I electronically filed the following with the 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system:

DEFENDANT TROY LAWRENCE’S MOTION 

TO REDUCE HIS LIFE SENTENCE

 /s/ MiAngel Cody

MIANGEL CODY

TDC LAW OFFICE 

1325 S. Wabash Ave. Suite 305

Chicago, IL 60605

 Counsel for Troy Lawrence 

Case: 1:02-cr-00200 Document #: 1931 Filed: 05/26/20 Page 29 of 29 PageID #:7940