Opinion ID: 4543683
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denson’s 2019 Motion for a Sentence Reduction

Text: In a February 7, 2019 order, the district court, in response to Denson’s inquiry, appointed counsel for Denson and invited Denson and the government to address Denson’s eligibility for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. The district court’s order tentatively set a hearing for April 18, 2019, but advised that 2 As explained in Jones, section 2 of the Fair Sentencing Act, the only section applicable in Denson’s appeal, “modified the statutory penalties for crack-cocaine offenses that have as an element the quantity of crack cocaine provided in subsections 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(iii).” Jones, ___ F.3d at ___, 2020 WL 3248113, at . 6 Case: 19-11696 Date Filed: 06/24/2020 Page: 7 of 18 the hearing may be cancelled if either Denson filed a waiver of the hearing or the government moved for no hearing. On March 19, 2019, the government filed a timely “Motion to Consider Reduction Without Hearing.” Relying on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(b)(4), the government submitted that the district court had the discretion to reduce Denson’s sentence without holding a hearing and asked that the matter be resolved on the written pleadings. The government advised that Denson opposed its motion. On April 10, 2019, the district court granted the government’s motion. The district court told the parties that the April 18 hearing would “go forward only if a written ruling has not been issued before that time based on the written record.” In their sentencing memoranda, the parties agreed that Denson was eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act.3 Denson’s offense in Count III—possession with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of crack cocaine—was less than 28 grams of crack cocaine. Under the Fair Sentencing Act, Denson’s offense thus now resulted in no mandatory minimum prison term (as opposed to 10 years) and a statutory maximum penalty of 30 years (as opposed to life), and his minimum supervised release term was 6 years (as opposed to 8 years). Compare 3 The government does not dispute that Denson’s offense in Count III is a covered offense under the First Step Act. 7 Case: 19-11696 Date Filed: 06/24/2020 Page: 8 of 18 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006) with 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2010). The 30-year statutory maximum penalty, in turn, lowered Denson’s offense level to 34 under the career offender provision and resulted in a lower advisory guidelines range of 188 to 235 months. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(B). The Probation Office’s memorandum reported that since his sentencing, Denson had several prison disciplinary reports involving his use of intoxicants, but that he also had participated in educational and wellness classes, including pursuing his GED. The government’s memorandum argued that a sentence within the new advisory guidelines was appropriate given Denson’s criminal history and “mixed” post-sentencing conduct. Denson’s memorandum argued for a “below-guideline sentence” based on Denson’s increased age, continued support from his family, and the lack of violence in his disciplinary reports. Denson also filed a “Reques[t] to be Present at Sentencing Hearing.” Denson argued that he had a due process right to be present at a hearing because of the “broad grant of discretion” conferred on the district court by the First Step Act and that “[t]o the extent that [his] right to due process conflicts with [Rule 43(b)(4)], his due process rights take precedence.” On April 16, 2019, the district court entered an order reducing Denson’s sentence on his drug conviction (Count III) to 188 months in prison and his supervised release term to 6 years and cancelling the hearing set for April 18, 8 Case: 19-11696 Date Filed: 06/24/2020 Page: 9 of 18 2019. The district court ordered that Denson’s sentence on his firearm conviction (Count IV) remain 120 months, still to be served concurrently. The district court noted Denson’s request to appear at a hearing, which it construed as a motion to reconsider the district court’s April 10, 2019 order, and stated that its earlier order was correct. On the merits, the district court noted that the parties agreed that Denson’s advisory guidelines range “is now 188 to 235 months” and stated that it had considered the “written record, including the [parties’] submissions.” The district court acknowledged that since his original sentencing, Denson had taken courses in prison, had “substantial family support” and a “middle-of-the-road disciplinary record.” The district court concluded, however, that “[t]he most important sentencing considerations are the same now as they were at the original sentencing.” The district court rejected Denson’s argument that his statistical risk of recidivism decreased now that he is older. The district court explained that Denson “will be released sooner than he would have been released on a 262-month sentence,” thus posing a slightly higher recidivism risk and that Denson’s age was “not new information that changes the analysis.” The district court stated that, at the original sentencing, it had decided as a matter of discretion that a downward variance from the career offender guidelines range was not warranted, “[e]specially in light of 9 Case: 19-11696 Date Filed: 06/24/2020 Page: 10 of 18 Mr. Denson’s criminal history,” and that “[n]othing has happened in the interim to change that conclusion.”