We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
GUNS AND DRUGS, BUT NOT AT THE SAME TIME
Where have we heard of this one before? Darryl Jackson found a buyer for some heroin. Unfortunately, the buyer was an informant, and he showed up to the buy with an undercover agent as his driver.
After the heroin transaction, the undercover cop-driver convinced the informant to ask Darryl about buying a gun as well as the drugs. Darryl wasn’t stocking any guns right then, but he wanted to keep the customer satisfied, so he walked home, grabbed a gun he had lying around the house, and returned to sell it to the informant.
The sale worked so well that Darryl apparently saw an opportunity to develop a side business. He sold the informant another gun a month later, and then a few minutes after the transaction, sold the undercover cop a gram of smack.
Naturally, Darryl was arrested and pled guilty. We wouldn’t have a story otherwise. Darryl’s presentence report included a 4-level enhancement to his advisory Guidelines sentencing range under USSG 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for “possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense, to wit: distribution of heroin.”
Darryl’s lawyer objected that “the guns and the drugs were not connected in any way, except to the extent that Mr. Jackson sold each of them, at different times, to the CI.” At sentencing, counsel contended, “In terms of the furtherance, there’s no close proximity. There’s no drugs and guns next to each other. They’re basically separate transactions.”
Alas, the district court did not buy it. Darryl got 100 months in prison, while with the four levels removed, his range would have been on the order of 77 to 96 months.
Last week, the 6th Circuit reversed. The appellate court said that “the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement applies if the defendant actually or constructively possessed the gun in connection with the felony. Because the record reveals no reason to conclude that Jackson actually possessed or used either gun in connection with the two drug sales, we focus here on constructive possession.”
Because he did not have a gun with him, the Circuit observed, Darryl had to walk a block away to retrieve the gun that he then exchanged for money. Because the gun was down the block during the initial heroin sale and because Darryl had no reason to expect there even would be a gun sale when he bought the drugs, there is no evidence that he “had either the power or the intention to exercise dominion or control over the gun in connection with this first sale of heroin.”
Actually, this is exactly how the Guidelines provision (and statutes like 18 USC 924(c)) are supposed to work. Darryl had a gun, but he did not carry it during a drug transaction. Maybe he worried about the extra time he could get for doing so. Maybe he worried about hurting someone. Maybe it was too heavy and made his pants droop. No one knows his thought processes, but the goal – short of ridding ourselves of drug trafficking altogether – is to get the violence out of the trade. The 6th Circuit’s wise parsing of the offense into two separate transactions honors this goal.
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
2014 GUIDELINE CHANGE CUT 30,000 DRUG SENTENCES
Back in the good old days, when the Executive Branch pretended to care about rational federal sentencing policies (and we’re not saying that the prior inhabitant of the White House really did, other than to the extent he could use sentence reform to burnish his legacy) the U.S. Sentencing Commission adopted an amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines that reduced by two the offense levels assigned to drug quantities. The 2014 change reduced defendant’s sentencing ranges accordingly.
Unlike most changes in the Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission made the 2-level reduction retroactive to people already sentenced. Retroactivity under the Guidelines is not an automatic thing: a defendant must petition his or her sentencing court under 18 USC 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction pursuant to the retroactive Guideline. If eligible, an inmate still must convince the court that a reduction of his or her sentence ought to be awarded. Sentencing courts have wide discretion as to what to do with a sentence reduction motion, and district court decisions are nearly bulletproof.
The Sentencing Commission released a report Tuesday on the fallout from the 2014 2-level reduction. Slightly more than 46,000 people applied for the reduction, of whom a few more than 30,000 receive sentence cuts, for a 66% grant rate. Like Meatloaf said, “Two outta three ain’t bad.”
Actually the odds for defendants were even better than that: 24% of the people who applied were not even eligible for the reduction, for reasons ranging from not having been sentenced under the drug guidelines to being locked in place by statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Only 8% of the 46,000 were denied on the merits (although due to sloppy district court records, the number could have been as high as 13%).
The average sentence was cut from 144 to 119 months, a 17% reduction. Of those receiving sentence reductions, 32% were convicted for methamphetamines, 28% for powder cocaine, 20% for crack, 9% for pot and 7% for heroin. The racial and ethnic distribution was 30% white, 33% black, and 41% Hispanic. Curiously enough, the defendant’s criminal history seemed to have no effect on likelihood of receiving a sentence cut, with novices and pros alike getting cuts at about the same rate.
Defendants were better off in Chicago than they were in sunny California. The 7th Circuit gave the largest sentence cuts, 33 months off on the average (20% of the original sentence). The 9th Circuit was the stingiest, giving an average cut of 20 months (16% of the sentence).
We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
Today, we offer a few kibbles of legal interest that have been cluttering our dog pound for the last few days…
US ATTORNEYS TO FOCUS ON VIOLENT CRIME, WHICH INCLUDES DRUG TRAFFICKING
There is some indication that the Trump Administration may be expanding violent crime enforcement activities, a category which Attorney General Jeffrey Sessions believes must include gun and drug offenses. In keeping with the President’s fixation on violent crime, Sessions last week ordered United States Attorneys to work with with local and state prosecutors “to investigate, prosecute and deter the most violent offenders.”
Sessions’ directive said, “federal prosecutors should coordinate with state and local counterparts to identify the venue (federal or state) that best ensures an immediate and appropriate penalty for these violent offenders.”
Attorney General Jeffrey Sessions
In keeping with the new emphasis on violent crime, Sessions has appointed Steve Cook, chief of the Criminal Division for the U. S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and one of last year’s most vocal opponents of sentencing reform, as associate deputy attorney general with a mandate to focus on violent crime. Cook told a newspaper last year, “When you put criminals in jail, crime goes down. That’s what incapacitation is designed to do, and it works.” He called the idea that most offenders in federal prisons are nonviolent drug pushers is a myth.
Some critics the emphasis on violent crime as federal encroachment. “An expanded federal criminal justice agenda comprised of federal-state-local task forces targeting violent offenses and coupled with tougher federal sentences would be a substantial change in practice and a step in the wrong direction,” says Ryan King, senior fellow at the Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
Tougher sentences could quickly reverse declines in BOP inmate population, especially in higher-level joints. According to a new Prison Policy Initiative report, 50% of the 189,000 federal prison inmates were convicted of drug offenses. Violent-crime convictions account for just 7% of the federal total.
The current-year book is available online as an interactive book that defies downloading. It contains a wealth of sentencing stats broken down in over 100 tables (as well as sentencing date by federal district, another 97 tables).
Slogging through the Sourcebook takes awhile, but it yields a lot of fascinating data. Of special interest:
• the number of cases ending with guilty pleas remained steady at 97%
• 14% of people challenging their sentences on direct appeal won reversal, but only 5% ended up with a better sentence.
• two out of three resentencings resulted from the 2-level reduction for drug offenses, Rule 35(b) reductions for helping the government were 11% of resentencings, and 10% were from wins on 2255 motions.
• continuing the pathetic performance on compassionate release, the courts granted a total of 51 inmates sentence reduction (a mere 0.4% of all resentencings).
• in new sentencings last year, 49% were within the Guidelines range, a two-percent increase over last year. Only 2% of sentences were above the range, while 19% were below the range for reasons other than government motion. About 20% of sentences were reduced because the defendant helped the government, and another 9% were cut for early disposition of an immigration case.
Like 97% of other federal defendants, Jim Kirkland made a deal with the government to plead guilty. In exchange, the government agreed to recommend the bottom of the guidelines range at sentencing.
But when Jim stood in front of the judge, the government went crazy on him, not just failing to recommend the bottom, but instead pushing for the very top, and bringing in live testimony of how terrible a few of his prior state crimes had been. The probation officer recommended the dead center of the sentencing range, and the judge gave it to him, saying that was what he had had in mind all along.
Jim’s sentencing lawyer must have been snoring too loudly to object, but on appeal, Jim raised the government’s plea breach. The AUSA admitted it was a plain breach, but argued the error did not affect Jim’s substantial rights or seriously affect “the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” two of the standard Jim had to meet before proving F.R.Crim.P. 52(b) “plain error.” The government’s rationale was that the district judge said he said the 300-month midpoint sentence “frankly, happens to coincide with my own independent decision,” and that was sufficient evidence that the court would have imposed the same exact sentence even if the AUSA had recommended the bottom of the guidelines.
Last week, the 5th Circuit agreed with Jim. Clearly unhappy at the government’s breach of its promise, the Court said “the government did not merely recommend a high-end sentence but also strongly argued and presented testimony in support of that recommendation, recounting in great detail the graphic and… explicit facts involved in Kirkland’s offense of conviction and a prior offense and emphasizing his criminal history and his violation of the conditions of his supervised release. The testimony and argument by the Government filled more than nine pages of the sentencing transcript. Therefore, the district court may have been influenced not only by the Government’s recommendation, but also by Government’s passionate emphasis of aggravating factors in support of that recommendation, which brought public safety concerns to the forefront.”
When the government breaches a plea agreement, a defendant may either ask the court to order specific performance of the plea agreement and resentencing before a different judge, or withdrawal of the guilty plea. Jim asked for and got resentencing before a new judge.
Where have we heard of this one before? Darryl Jackson found a buyer for some heroin. Unfortunately, the buyer was an informant, and he showed up to the buy with an undercover agent as his driver. 
Darryl’s lawyer objected that “the guns and the drugs were not connected in any way, except to the extent that Mr. Jackson sold each of them, at different times, to the CI.” At sentencing, counsel contended, “In terms of the furtherance, there’s no close proximity. There’s no drugs and guns next to each other. They’re basically separate transactions.” 
Actually, this is exactly how the Guidelines provision (and statutes like 18 USC 924(c)) are supposed to work. Darryl had a gun, but he did not carry it during a drug transaction. Maybe he worried about the extra time he could get for doing so. Maybe he worried about hurting someone. Maybe it was too heavy and made his pants droop. No one knows his thought processes, but the goal – short of ridding ourselves of drug trafficking altogether – is to get the violence out of the trade. The 6th Circuit’s wise parsing of the offense into two separate transactions honors this goal.
