United States v. Brown

• Decision Date: 22 March 2022
• Docket Number: 6:13-CR-06006 EAW
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, v. Shawnta BROWN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

592 F.Supp.3d 142

UNITED STATES of America,

v.Shawnta BROWN, Defendant.

6:13-CR-06006 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed March 22, 2022

Robert Marangola, U.S. Attorney's Office, Rochester, NY, for United States of America.

Avik K. Ganguly, Ganguly Brothers, PLLC, Rochester, NY, for Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, Chief Judge

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by defendant Shawnta Brown (hereinafter "Defendant") to be "place[d] in the Care Act" due to his immunocompromised state and the COVID-19 pandemic, which the Court interprets as a motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (Dkt. 360).¹ For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Shawnta Brown ("Defendant") was sentenced to 248 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release after pleading guilty to Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment charging conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute, five kilograms or more of cocaine and 280 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and to Count 2 charging possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). (Dkt. 223; Dkt. 225; Dkt. 258).

The pending motion represents at least the seventh request² by Defendant for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). On April 30, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for compassionate release (Dkt. 320), which the Court denied by Order entered May 26, 2020, for failure to comply with the administrative exhaustion requirements by submitting a request to the warden of the facility where Defendant was housed (Dkt. 323). Defendant renewed his motion on June 4, 2020 (Dkt. 324), and also sought reconsideration of the denial of his earlier motion for compassionate release (Dkt. 326), and by Decision and Order entered September 9, 2020, this Court denied those motions, along with Defendant's motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Dkt. 332). Defendant sought reconsideration of that Decision and Order to the extent it denied the request for compassionate release (Dkt. 336), which the Court denied by Order entered October 13, 2020 (Dkt. 339). Defendant again sought reconsideration of the Court's denial of his request for compassionate release (Dkt. 340), which the Court denied by Decision and Order entered January 5, 2021 (Dkt. 346). Defendant again filed a motion for reconsideration on April 29, 2021 (Dkt. 352), which the Court denied by Text Order entered May 5, 2021 (Dkt. 353). Defendant appealed from the Court's Decision and Order entered January 5, 2021, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision by Summary Order entered December 13, 2021. (Dkt. 362).

Defendant filed the present motion on January 14, 2022. (Dkt. 360). The government submitted a letter in opposition on January 26, 2022. (Dkt. 363). A memorandum from the United States Probation Office was submitted on January 27, 2022. (Dkt. 368). On February 10, 2022, Defendant filed a supplement to his motion with various exhibits. (Dkt. 364; Dkt. 365). Defendant also filed a reply to the government's opposition (Dkt. 366), and an affirmation from a fellow inmate attesting to Defendant's character (Dkt. 367).

Defendant is currently housed within the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") at United States Penitentiary Lewisburg ("USP Lewisburg") located in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, with a scheduled release date of October 18, 2029. See Find an Inmate , Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited March 21, 2022). According to the BOP's website tracking COVID-19 cases in its facilities, no inmate or staff member at USP Lewisburg are currently testing positive for COVID-19. See COVID-19: Coronavirus , Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited March 21, 2022).

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

"A court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except pursuant to statute." United States v. Gotti , 433 F. Supp. 3d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). The compassionate release statute, as amended by the First Step Act, is such a statutory exception, and provides as follows:

The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that ... the court, upon motion of the Director of the [BOP] ..., or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] ... to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that ... extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction ... and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission[.]

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Relief is appropriate pursuant to § 3582(c)(1)(A) when the following conditions are met: (1) the exhaustion requirement of the statute is satisfied; (2) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction of the prison sentence; and (3) the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support modification of the prison term.³ "The defendant carries the burden of showing that he or she is entitled to a sentence reduction under the statute." United States v. Roney , No. 10-CR-130S, 2020 WL 2846946, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. June 2, 2020), aff'd , 833 F. App'x 850 (2d Cir. 2020).

Here, the Court has already extensively discussed the § 3553(a) factors in its prior decisions (see, e.g. , Dkt. 332 at 31-32; Dkt. 346 at 6-8), and why they do not warrant granting Defendant compassionate release. In his current motion, Defendant focuses his attention on his steps at rehabilitation, and the Court commends Defendant for apparently taking positive steps that will hopefully serve him well once released. But those efforts do not undermine the persuasiveness of the reasons for why the Court imposed the initial sentence nor cause the Court to reconsider the appropriateness of that sentence—including that Defendant was "a major and significant drug dealer" who had been engaged in drug trafficking activity for a long time; that he was "a very high level drug dealer" who was "dealing very significant amounts of cocaine" and engaged in conduct representing a significant harm to the community; and that he possessed at least nine firearms in furtherance of his drug trafficking activity, representing a distinct type of harm and danger. (See Dkt. 349 at 17-20).

In addition, the Court concludes that Defendant has failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction. While the Court acknowledges the serious medical condition that Defendant suffers from, as supported by the letter submitted by Defendant from Dr. Abdalla Sholi confirming that Defendant is "considered to be immunocompromised" and a "high risk for infection including contraction of COVID 19" (Dkt. 360 at 2), it is also apparent that Defenda...