Price v. United States

• Decision Date: 24 October 2022
• Docket Number: 7:14-CR-78-D-2,7:21-CV-222-D
• Parties: JUSTICE DEVON PRICE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina

JUSTICE DEVON PRICE, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

No. 7:14-CR-78-D-2

No. 7:21-CV-222-D

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division

October 24, 2022

ORDER

JAMES C. DEVER, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On November 22, 2021, Justice Devon Price (“Price” or “petitioner”) moved to appoint counsel [D.E. 490]. On December 27,2021, Price moved pro se for compassionate release under the First Step Act (“First Step Act”), Pub. L.No. 115-391, § 603(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5238-41 (2018) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 3582) [D.E. 496]. On December 27,2021, the court appointed Price counsel in order to seek compassionate release [D.E. 497]. On December 28, 2021, Price moved pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his 188-month sentence [D.E. 498]. On January 3,2021, Price filed pro se a letter in support of his motion to vacate [D.E. 500]. On January 4,2021, Price filed pro se a letter in support of his motion for compassionate release [D.E. 501]. On January 20,2022, Price filed pro sea corrected motion to vacate under section 2255 [D.E. 503]. On March 21,2022, the government moved to dismiss Price's section 2255 motion [D.E. 509]. On March 24,2022, the court issued Price a Rule 12 letter [D.E. 511]. On March 24, 2022, Price moved pro se again to appoint counsel [D.E. 512]. On April 18,2022, Price moved pro se for clarification [D.E. 522]. On April 25, 2022, Price responded pro se to the government's motion to dismiss Price's section 2255 motion [D.E. 523] and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 524]. On May 17, 2022,

1

the government responded in opposition to Price's motion for compassionate release [D.E. 527]. On May 25, 2022, Price replied pro se to the government's response [D.E. 532]. As explained below, the court denies Price's motion for compassionate release, grants the government's motion to dismiss, dismisses Price's section 2255 motions, denies as moot Price's motions to appoint counsel, and denies Price's motion for clarification.

I.

On March 7,2016, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Price pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and 100 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of phencycline (“PCP”). See [D.E. 384, 385]; Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) [D.E. 394] ¶¶ 1-4. On October 12, 2016, the court held Price's sentencing hearing. See Sent. Tr. [D.E. 444]. At the hearing, the court denied Price's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, adopted the facts set forth in the PSR, and resolved Price's objections. See Sent Tr. at 4-18; Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A)-(B). The court calculated Price's total offense level to be 31, his criminal history category to be VI, and his advisory guideline range to be 188 to 235 months' imprisonment. See Sent. Tr. at 17. The court then thoroughly considered all relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and sentenced Price to 188 months' imprisonment. See id. at 18-33. The court also announced that even if the court miscalculated the advisory guideline range, it • would impose the same sentence as an alternative variant sentence. See id. at 34. Further, the court stated that “the sentence is the sufficient but not greater than necessary [sentence] for Mr. Price.” See id.

Price appealed. See [D.E. 437], On June 22,2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed that Price's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, affirmed that Price

2

waived his right to appeal, and dismissed Price's appeal. See United States v. Price, 691 Fed.Appx. 775,776 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished); [D.E. 455] 2.

On December 27, 2021, Price moved for compassionate relief. See [D.E. 496]. On December 28,2021, Price moved under section 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his 188-month sentence. See [D.E. 498], The government opposes Price's motion for compassionate release and moved to dismiss Price's section 2255 motions. See [D.E. 509, 527].

II.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a court may reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment if (1) “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” or (2) “the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years in prison,” and the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has determined the defendant is not a danger to another person or the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)-(ii); see United States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189,194 (4th Cir. 2022); United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181,185-86 (4th Cir. 2021); United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 330 (4th Cir.) (per curiam), cert, denied, 142 S.Ct. 383 (2021); United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271,275-77 (4th Cir. 2020). A section 3582(c)(1)(A) sentence reduction must comport with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and applicable Sentencing Commission policy statements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 194.

Before filing a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a defendant must “fully exhaust[] all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days ftom the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). This requirement is nonjurisdictional, and the government waives a defense based on section 3582(c)(1)(A)'s exhaustion

3

requirements if the government does not timely raise it. See United States v. Muhammad, 16 F.4th 126,129-30 (4th Cir. 2021).

When considering a defendant's compassionate release motion, the court determines whether extraordinary and compelling circumstances exist and whether, in the court's discretion, those circumstances warrant relief in light of relevant factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and applicable Sentencing Commission policy statements. See Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 194-95; High. 997 F.3d at 186; Kibble, 992 F.3d at 330-32. In evaluating the section 3553(a) factors, the court considers, inter alia, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the defendant's post-sentencing conduct, the need to deter criminal behavior, the need to promote respect for the law, and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1959, 1966-68 (2018); Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 480-81 (2011); High, 997 F.3d at 186; Kibble, 992 F.3d at 331-32; United States v. McDonald, 986 F.3d 402,412 (4th Cir. 2021); United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389,398 (4th Cir. 2019). Although a court considers a...