Source: http://wv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191203_0001129.SWV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 08:54:19
Document Index: 368776458

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 846', '§ 924', '§ 1956', '§ 841', '§ 851', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 3582', '§ 3582']

FindACase™ | United States v. Spotts
United States v. Spotts
KELVIN ANDRE SPOTTS, a/k/a Shorty
Pending before the Court are Defendant Kelvin Andre Spotts' seven motions requesting relief under the First Step Act. ECF Nos. 1451, 1452, 1456, 1461, 1472, 1473, 1476, 1479. For the purposes of this analysis, the Court will construe the first of these motions-styled a “Motion Requesting Immediate Release From Federal Prison”-as a Motion for Reduction of Sentence under the First Step Act. ECF No. 1451. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. Defendant's successive motions seeking relief under the First Step Act are accordingly DENIED AS MOOT.
On September 18, 1998, Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of an eighteen-count superseding indictment. Plea Agreement, ECF No. 385. Count Two charged Defendant with conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, or “crack, ” powder cocaine, and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 30, at 3. Count Thirteen charged Defendant with use of a firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Id. at 14. Third and finally, Count Eighteen charged Defendant with conspiracy to launder money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Id. at 20-21. Over the course of the following few months, Defendant filed a series of motions aimed at withdrawing his guilty plea, changing his representation, and otherwise lessening his sentencing exposure. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 432, 433, 439, 440. Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) and an Information filed pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, Defendant faced a statutory sentencing range of twenty years to life imprisonment on Count Two. He also faced a mandatory minimum sixty-month term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), set to run consecutively to all other counts. With a criminal history category of VI and a total offense level of forty-four, Defendant faced a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment on Count Two alone under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines.[1]
The Court denied Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and conducted a sentencing on February 10, 1999. Sentencing Tr., ECF No. 570. Twenty-two kilograms of crack were attributed to Defendant for the purposes of calculating his guideline range, though additional quantities of marijuana and powder cocaine were noted in the presentence report. Id. at 9-10; Probation Mem., at 3. The Court concluded that Defendant was “the organizer, ringleader and in every sense the supervisor of [a drug distribution] conspiracy involving numerous individuals, ” responsible for importing a “huge quantity of cocaine and cocaine base” into the Southern District of West Virginia. Sentencing Tr., at 26-27. The Court sentenced Defendant to a term of life imprisonment on Count Two, to be constructively followed by a term of sixty months imprisonment on the § 924(c) firearm charge contained in Count Thirteen.[2] Nevertheless, the Court observed that it likely would not have imposed a sentence of life imprisonment if the Guidelines had not mandated such a sentence. Id. at 28. Although rendered irrelevant by Defendant's lifetime term of imprisonment, the Court also sentenced Defendant to the ten-year statutory minimum term of supervised release. Id.
To date, the defendant has served approximately 257 months in prison. Probation Mem., at 5. He completed the drug education program in 2002, and has satisfied his financial obligations.[3]Id. Somewhat remarkably, Defendant has accumulated no more than twelve sanctions over the course of his nearly twenty-two year term of incarceration. Id. Pursuant to the 2014 Drug Amendment, on October 30, 2015, the Court reduced Defendant's sentence on Count Two to 360 months imprisonment. Id. at 3. Even allowing for this reduction, however, Defendant's consecutive sixty-month sentence on Count Thirteen means he is not projected to be released until February 3, 2029. Id. at 5.
The proper mechanism to seek relief under the First Step Act is 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(b).[5]United States v. Wirsing, No. 19-6381, 2019 WL 6139017, at *8 (4th Cir. Nov. 20, 2019) (published). As such, the language of First Step Act controls the Court's ability to grant relief. See Wright v. United States, 393 F.Supp.3d 432, 441 (E.D. Va. 2019). Under § 3582(c)(1)(B), a court can choose to conduct a simple mechanical reduction of a sentence based on a decreased exposure to statutory minimums and the correlating lower guideline range.