Source: http://wv.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191101_0001050.SWV.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 08:24:36
Document Index: 146365104

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 404', '§ 3582', '§ 3582', '§ 3582', '§ 404', '§ 3553']

FindACase™ | United States v. Baird
ALLEN BAIRD, also known as “Scratch”
Pending before the Court are Defendant Allen Baird's two Motions for Reduction of Sentence under the First Step Act of 2018. Mots. for Reduction of Sentence, ECF Nos. 66, 76. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motions.
On March 27, 2006, Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment that charged him with aiding and abetting the distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base, or “crack, ” in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Eligibility Mem., ECF No. 73, at 1. His plea subjected him to a statutory sentencing range of five to forty years imprisonment. Id. As a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, Defendant's total offense level was calculated at thirty-one. With a criminal history category of VI, his guideline sentencing range was 188 to 235 months imprisonment. Id. On July 10, 2006, this Court sentenced Defendant to 220 months imprisonment-a sentence near the top of his guideline range-to be followed by four years of supervised release.
To date, Defendant has served approximately 161 months of his term of imprisonment. Probation Mem., at 4. His institutional adjustment has been free of any major stumbling blocks; while he has accumulated several sanctions, he has also obtained his GED and completed a number of other educational courses.[1] Id. Defendant is projected to be released from custody on February 17, 2022. Id.
To be eligible for a reduction in sentence, a defendant's sentence must not have been imposed or previously reduced under sections two or three of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.[2]Id. at § 404(c). Nor can a defendant have been previously denied a reduction under § 404 of the First Step Act. Id. While a defendant, the Government, or the Court can move for a reduced sentence, individuals are not entitled to a reduction as courts are not required to grant relief under § 404. Id. The First Step Act therefore represents a broad grant of authority to the federal courts.
Courts in this district and throughout the Fourth Circuit agree that the proper mechanism to seek relief under the First Step Act is 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(b).[3] United States v. Banks, No. 1:07-00157, 2019 WL 2221620, at *4 (S.D. W.Va. May 22, 2019) (Faber, J.) (citing United States v. Shelton, No. 3:07-329, 2019 WL 1598921, at *3 (D.S.C. April 15, 2019) (listing cases)). As such, the language of First Step Act controls the Court's ability to grant relief. See Wright v. United States, Nos. 4:95-39, 4:95-44, 2019 WL 3046096, at *4 (E.D. Va. July 11, 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.
However, courts are not limited by § 3582(c)(1)(B). The First Step Act allows a court to “impose a reduced sentence” if an individual is eligible. The First Step Act, § 404(b). Reading the word “impose” consistently within the United States Code reveals that this equates to the announcement of a convicted person's sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3582(a). Therefore, the First Step Act grants courts statutory authority to conduct a full resentencing, in addition to the discretion to decide when doing so is appropriate. See Wright, 2019 WL 3046096, at *4. Whether or not a court decides to resentence a defendant, the language of the First Step Act does not require a hearing. See Id. at *5. It is within the sound judgment of the Court to determine if an evidentiary or sentencing hearing is necessary to address the issues of a particular case.
Once a defendant is determined to be eligible, the Court must examine the statutory threshold to which that defendant pleaded and compare it to the alteration of the applicable law. The Court recognizes that the drug quantity listed in an indictment traditionally tracks the statutory minimums to ensure a defendant's plea or conviction complies with the Sixth Amendment. It is not illogical to speculate that had the Fair Sentencing Act been enacted at the time of a defendant's plea, the elevated statutory amounts would be listed in the indictment and may have had little to no impact on the defendant's decision to plea. See U.S. v. Blocker, No. 4:07-36-RH, 2019 WL 2051957, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2019) (explaining “indictment-controls” versus “offense-controls” theories, and adopting the latter). Yet to assume such a fact impermissibly alters the indictment and unconstitutionally abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. See Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). In the context of First Step Act cases, this is true whether a court is conducting a full resentencing or not. See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 379 F.Supp.3d 543, 546-47 (W.D. Va. May 13, 2019). Due to the constitutional considerations, this Court-along with a number of others- adopts an “indictment-controls” interpretation of the First Step Act's impact on a defendant's plea. United States v. Springs, No. 3:05-CR-00042-FDW-1, 2019 WL 3310092 (W.D. N.C. July 23, 2019) (applying Alleyne to First Step Act cases) (listing cases).