United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION REGARDING DEFENDANT HUGHES’S FIRST STEP
ACT MOTION
ROBERT
J. JONKER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
INTRODUCTION
Defendant
Hughes pleaded guilty to a Section 841(b)(1)(A) crack cocaine
offense; a Section 841(b)(1)(C) powder cocaine offense; a
Section 922(g) firearm offense; and a Section 924(c) firearm
offense in July 2008. The crack cocaine offense exposed
Defendant to a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in
prison and a maximum of life. He was sentenced in May 2009 to
a total term of 181 months imprisonment. He was twenty-seven
years old at the time.
The
matter before the Court is Defendant Hughes’s motion
for modification or reduction in sentence under the newly
enacted First Step Act, which provides for the retroactive
application of certain sentencing reforms contained in the
2010 Fair Sentencing Act. (ECF No. 82). The Court appointed
counsel to assist Defendant Hughes with his First Step
motion. Both sides have filed briefs asserting that Defendant
Hughes is eligible for a reduced sentence.
The
Court agrees and finds that Hughes is eligible for relief
under the First Step Act. The Court discerns no need for a
hearing on the fully briefed issues. The Court can and does
exercise its discretion under the First Step Act to reduce
Defendant Hughes’s sentence as provided in this Opinion
and corresponding Order.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously summarized the
events leading to Defendant’s criminal conviction:
On March 25, 2008, a 911 call reporting an assault of a
female by her boyfriend led police officers to respond to
defendant's apartment in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Defendant answered the door, said he was alone, and allegedly
permitted the officers to enter to determine whether anyone
inside was injured. Despite defendant's attempt to hide
it, the officers saw marijuana and crack cocaine in plain
view in the living room. A protective sweep of the area where
defendant was asked to sit revealed a loaded Cobray 9mm rifle
and a loaded Femaru 9mm semiautomatic pistol between the
cushions of the loveseat and couch. The premises were secured
while a search warrant was obtained, and the subsequent
search resulted in the discovery of 64 grams of crack cocaine
and 116 grams of powder cocaine.
A four-count Indictment filed on May 6, 2008, charged
defendant with possessing with intent to distribute more than
50 grams of cocaine base, possessing with intent to
distribute powder cocaine, being a felon in possession of a
firearm, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking offense. Unwilling to cooperate as required by
the government's proposed plea agreement, but wanting to
avoid an enhancement of the mandatory minimum sentence from
10 years to 20 years that would result from the anticipated
filing of a supplemental information, defendant pleaded
guilty as charged following extensive questioning by the
district court during the July 21, 2008 change-of-plea
hearing.
United States v. Hughes, 392 F. App’x 382, 383
(6th Cir. 2010).
The
Final Presentence Report (PSR) prepared by the probation
officer found that Defendant Hughes was responsible for 64.19
grams of crack cocaine and 123.16 grams of powder cocaine. At
the time, this was equivalent to 24.62 kilograms of
marijuana. (PSR ¶ 16). He was further found responsible
for the Cobray 9mm rifle and the Femaru 9mm semiautomatic
pistol. (Id.) The Sentencing Guidelines commentary
was then used to calculate Defendant’s initial base
offense level of 30. (PSR ¶ 30; see U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1. cmts. 10(B) and 10(D)(i)). That level
subsequently became Defendant’s total offense level for
purposes of determining the guidelines for the first three
counts. (PSR ¶ 42). The officer then scored four
criminal history points, corresponding to a criminal history
category of III. On the chart, Defendant’s guideline
range was 121-151 months on the first three counts.
Defendant’s conviction for Count 4 then required the
minimum term of imprisonment required by statute, or five
years consecutive with the other terms. U.S.S.G. §
2K2.4(b).
At the
April 30, 2009 sentencing, the Court overruled the defense
objection to the probation officer’s decision not to
reduce Defendant’s level of offense to account for his
acceptance of responsibility, and imposed a sentence of 181
months imprisonment, consisting of concurrent terms of 121
months on Count 1, 121 months on Count 2, and 120 months on
Count 3.[1] The Court imposed a consecutive sentence
of 60 months with respect to Count 4 resulting in a total
term of imprisonment of 181 months. (ECF No. 49). An initial
remand by the Sixth Circuit resulted in the same sentence on
January 28, 2011.[2] (ECF No. 71, 72). The resentencing,
however, raised a novel issue: whether the sentencing reforms
provided in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No.
111-220, 124 Stat. 2372, which was enacted after his original
sentence should apply to the resentencing. The Court
concluded it did not apply, and in a published decision the
Sixth Circuit affirmed the Court’s decision. United
States v. Hughes, 733 F.3d 642 (6th Cir. 2013). Since
then Defendant Hughes has unsuccessfully pursued collateral
relief in a Section 2255 action. Hughes v. United
States, No. 1:16-cv-804 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 3, 2018),
aff’d No. 18-1029 (6th Cir. June 14, 2018).
On
December 31, 2018, Defendant Hughes returned to his criminal
case seeking relief under the First Step Act. (ECF No. 82).
The Court appointed counsel to assist Defendant Hughes on
April 4, 2019 (ECF No. 89). The government and Defendant have
both filed briefs and supplemental briefs.
THE
FAIR SENTENCING ACT OF 2010
In the
summer of 2010 Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act of
2010, Pub L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010). The Fair
Sentencing Act reduced the sentencing disparity between crack
and powder cocaine offenses by increasing the amount of crack
cocaine needed to trigger the mandatory minimums established
in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. United States v.
Blewett, 746 F.3d 647, 649 (6th Cir. 2013) (en banc);
see also Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260,
263-64 (2012). More specifically, the Fair Sentencing Act
increased the threshold quantity in 21 U.S.C. §
851(b)(1)(A)(iii) from 50 grams or more of crack cocaine to
280 grams or more. Fair Sentencing Act at § 2(a)(1). The
Fair Sentencing Act also increased the threshold quantity in
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) from 5 grams or more of
crack cocaine to 28 grams or more. Fair Sentencing Act at
§ 2(a)(2). Today, therefore, in order to trigger the ten
years to life sentencing range of Section 841(b)(1)(A)(iii)
that Defendant Hughes was convicted under with respect to
Count 1, the offense must involve more than 280 grams of
crack cocaine.
Those
changes made by the Fair Sentencing Act, however, were not
retroactive. Blewett, 746 F.3d at 650.[3] Because Defendant
Hughes had been convicted and sentenced before the Fair
Sentencing Act’s enactment he was not, at that time,
eligible for any relief.
THE
FIRST ...