Opinion ID: 4569171
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bryant’s Guilty Plea and Sentencing

Text: On June 7, 2018, Bryant pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement with the government, to a two-count superseding information charging him with the following: (1) one count of conspiring to distribute 28 grams or more of cocaine base from the fall of 2014 through August 26, 2016, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(B); and (2) one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in August 2016, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). In the plea agreement, the parties agreed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), that Bryant should receive a term of imprisonment of no greater than ten years. Sentencing took place on November 19, 2018. With respect to the calculation of the United States Sentencing Guidelines range, the Probation Department determined that Bryant had a total offense level of 33 and a criminal history 2 Bryant was removed from further supervised probation after one year. 7 category III, which resulted in an advisory Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment. At sentencing, the parties stipulated to the total offense level of 33, consisting of the following: a base offense level of 28 for a conspiracy involving at least 196 grams of cocaine base, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(6); a two-level firearm enhancement, id. § 2D1.1(b)(1); a two-level enhancement for the use of violence, id. § 2D1.1(b)(2); a two-level enhancement for maintaining a drug-distribution premises, id. § 2D1.1(b)(12); a two-level enhancement for Bryant’s role in the offense, id. § 3B1.1(c); and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, id. § 3E1.1. With respect to the criminal history calculation, Bryant argued that he should only be a criminal history category II because he should not receive a twopoint increase for committing the crime while under supervision for a previous petit larceny conviction and, even if the two points were properly counted, he is entitled to a downward departure in his criminal history category because it overrepresented the seriousness of such history. As to the ultimate sentence, Bryant argued that the district court should impose five years’ imprisonment, which was the mandatory minimum sentence based upon the narcotics conspiracy count, while the government argued for a 8 sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. In support of his argument for a variance from the Guidelines range, Bryant noted, among other things, that the district court had already sentenced two of his co-defendants: Alfred Spellman, who had received a time-served sentence of approximately two years’ imprisonment; and Earl Brown, who had received a sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment. Bryant noted that Spellman was also involved in the August 26th shooting incident, including discharging his weapon with Bryant. Thus, Bryant contended that these co-defendants were “of equal standing in the offense” and, to avoid unwarranted disparity, he should receive a sentence of no more than five years’ imprisonment. App’x at 104. On this issue, the government responded that Bryant’s extensive involvement with firearms and leadership role distinguished him from other members of the conspiracy. Moreover, with respect to the particular codefendants referenced by Bryant, the government noted that it was unable to prove any controlled purchases from Spellman, and that Brown was not Bryant’s primary supplier. Therefore, the government argued that these distinctions would further explain any disparity in their sentencings as compared to the ten-year sentence being requested by the government. 9 The district court preliminarily determined that the advisory Guidelines range was 168 to 210 months’ imprisonment, based upon a total offense level of 33 and a criminal history category III, and also noted that it would consider Bryant’s argument regarding the criminal history category as part of his overall request for a non-Guidelines sentence. Within that framework, the district court granted Bryant’s request to have his criminal history category lowered to category II after concluding that the lower category was “more suitable” in light of the nature of his prior convictions. App’x at 191. The district court also lowered the total offense level from a level 33 to a level 28 because, based upon a balancing of the various sentencing factors (including Bryant’s genuine remorse and post-arrest rehabilitation), the district court concluded that the range that resulted from that additional adjustment (namely, 87 to 108 months’ imprisonment) was sufficient to accomplish the purposes of sentencing in this case. 3 After explaining its reasoning with respect to a number of the sentencing factors, including Bryant’s relative 3Although the district court referred to this determination as an “adjustment” to the total offense level, App’x at 193, it is clear that this was a variance from the otherwise applicable Guidelines range (as opposed to some type of downward departure within the advisory Guidelines system) because both the parties and the district court stated their agreement that the correct total offense level was 33, and the district court further explained it was applying the lower offense level of 28 based upon consideration of all the sentencing factors. 10 culpability, the district court sentenced Bryant to 90 months’ imprisonment on each of the two counts to run concurrently, followed by four years of supervised release. Bryant also raised objections at the sentencing regarding two of the proposed conditions of supervised release. First, Bryant objected to the risk condition, which allowed the Probation Department to require Bryant to notify another person if the probation officer determined that Bryant posed a risk to that person. Bryant contended that the condition unlawfully delegated authority to the Probation Department and that, in any event, the condition is constitutionally vague. The district court agreed that the risk condition should be modified to require judicial approval. 4 However, the district court imposed the modified risk condition, notwithstanding Bryant’s remaining vagueness objection. Second, Bryant objected to the communication condition, which would limit his ability to communicate or interact with individuals known to be engaged in criminal activity or known to have been convicted of a felony. More specifically, 4 The oral modification by the district court during sentencing was not included in the written judgment. However, the addendum to the PSR included a proposed modified version of the risk condition, which incorporated judicial oversight and a limitation on what information would be considered in determining Bryant’s “risk.” Addendum to the PSR at 32. 11 Bryant asserted that the communication condition would interfere with his right to associate with his brother, who was a convicted felon. The district court responded: Well do you know if that is a problem here? I mean I’ve never seen a situation which when a brother has a felony conviction that brother is not allowed to talk with other brothers who may have a felony conviction. Probation officers just generally allow that to happen. App’x at 172. When Bryant explained that he did not want to rely upon any practice by the Probation Department, but rather wanted the condition to reflect the exclusion of communications with family members from this restriction, the district court denied that request. This appeal followed.