United States v. Celestine
| Decision Date | 31 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 4:95-CR-41-D |
| Parties | UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA v. BERNARD CELESTINE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
On March 28, 2022, Bernard Celestine (“Celestine” or “defendant”) moved for compassionate release and a sentence reduction under the First Step Act (“First Step Act”), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b), 132 Stat. 5194,5238-41 (2018) () and filed exhibits in support [D.E. 1174]. On May2,2022, the government responded in opposition [D.E 1193]. On May 17, 2022, the probation office filed a modification to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) stating that the new statutory maximum on count three is 240 months' imprisonment [D.E. 1205]. As explained below, the court grants Celestine's motion for a sentence reduction in part and reduces his sentence on count three to 240 months' imprisonment, but denies any other reduction of Celestine's sentence in light of the section 3553(a) factors. Celestine shall continue to serve his life sentence. '
I.
On November 12, 1996, a jury found Celestine guilty of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (count one), conspiracy to violate the RICO statute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (count two), conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (count three), conspiracy to kidnap in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(c) (count ten), and kidnapping resulting in death and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1) and (2) (count eleven). See [D.E. 525]. Celestine and his associates operated a large-scale drug enterprise in New York and North Carolina. See PSR [D.E. 928] ¶¶ 11-26. As part of Celestine's drug trafficking, Celestine was responsible for distributing at least 3.5 kilograms of cocaine base. See Id. at ¶ 45. And Celestine was involved in the kidnaping and brutal murder of cooperating witness, Roneka Jackson. See Id. at ¶¶ 38-44. Celestine and a co-conspirator assaulted Jackson until she was unconscious and then murdered her by setting set her body on fire with gasoline and matches. See Id. at ¶ 42. Before Celestine and others murdered Jackson, Jackson had assisted law enforcement in investigating Celestine and his criminal associates. See id.
On March 11, 1997, the court held Celestine's sentencing hearing. The court calculated Celestine's offense level to be 43, his criminal history category to be I, and his guideline range on each count to be life imprisonment. See PSR¶¶70-79,80,84. Count eleven carried a mandatory life sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 1201(c); PSR ¶ 83. After considering the arguments of counsel, the court sentenced Celestine to life imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. See [D.E. 546].
Celestine appealed. See [D.E. 555]. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. See United States v. Celestine, 43 Fed.Appx. 586 589, 598 (4th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (unpublished); [D.E. 662]. Celestine petitioned for writ of certiorari. On December 16, 2002, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. See Celestine v. United States, 123 S.Ct. 706 (2002).
On January 12,2004, Celestine moved to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See [D.E. 689]. The court dismissed Celestine's section 2255 motion. See [D.E. 725]. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. See United States v. Celestine, 158 Fed.Appx. 493 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (unpublished); [D.E. 398].
On April 4,2014, Celestine againmovedto vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See [D.E. 803]. On April 8, 2014, the court dismissed Celestine's motion. See [D.E. 805]. On November25,2014, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. See United States v. Celestine, 585 Fed.Appx. 271 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished); [D.E. 821]. On May 8,2015, Celestine moved to reduce his sentence under U.S.S.G. Amendment 782. See [D.E. 834]. On January 20,2016, the court denied the motion. See [D.E. 879]. On February 25,2016, Celestine moved to correct the judgment and the PSR under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See [D.E. 881]. On January 25,2017, the court denied this motion. See [D.E.922]. Celestine appealed. See [D.E. 925]. On June 23,2017, the Fourth Circuit affirmed this court's order denying Celestine's motion. See United States v. Celestine, 692 Fed.Appx. 137 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished); [D.E. 939].
On February 4,2019, Celestine moved for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. See [D.E. 996]. On June 21,2021, the case was reassigned. On March 9,2022, the court ordered the government to respond to Celestine's motion. See [D.E. 1169]. On March 28, 2022, Celestine moved for compassionate release and a sentence reduction under the First Step Act and filed exhibits in support. See [D.E. 1174]. On May 2,2022, the government responded in opposition. See [D.E. 1193]. On May 17,2022, the probation office filed a modification to the PSR. See [D.E. 1205].
II.
On December 21,2018, the First Step Act went into effect. See First Step Act, 132 Stat, at 5249. Before the First Step Act, only the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) could file a motion for compassionate release. 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 BOP has determined that the defendant is not a danger to another person or the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see United States v. Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189,194 (4th Cir. 2022); United States v. High, 997F.3d 181,185-86 (4th Cir. 2021); United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326,329-30 (4th Cir. 2021) (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 [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.” 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 timing 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, a 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 defendant's post-sentencing conduct, rehabilitation alone is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(f); U.S.S.G. § lB1.13cmtn.3; McCoy, 981 F.3d at 286 n.9.
No Sentencing Commission policy statement currently applies to a defendant's compassionate release motion. See Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 194; High. 997 F.3d at 186; Kibble, 992 F.3d at 330-31; McCoy, 981 F.3d at 281-82. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is a policy statement that applies to compassionate release motions filed by the BOP Director. Nonetheless, section 1B1.13 “remains helpful guidance even when motions are filed by defendants.” McCoy, 981 F.3d at 282 n.7; see Hargrove, 30 F.4th at 194. Application Note 1 of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 lists several extraordinary and compelling circumstances, including (A) a defendant's serious medical condition, (B) a defendant's age, when coupled with serious physical or mental deterioration due to age and having served 10 years or 75 percent of his or her sentence, (C) certain family circumstances in which a defendant's minor children or incapacitated spouse or registered partner would otherwise have no caregiver, or (D) any other extraordinary and compelling reason. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1. “[A]n extraordinary and compelling reason need not have been unforeseen at the time of sentencing in order to warrant a” sentence reduction. Id. at § 1B1.13 cmt. n.2.
Celestine seeks compassionate release pursuant to section 3582(c)(1)(A). Celestine sought administrative relief before filing his motion for compassionate relief. See [D.E. 1174-4] 4. Therefore, Celestine has satisfied the administrative exhaustion requirement, which the government recognizes. See [D.E. 1193] 3-4.
In seeking compassionate release, Celestine cites the COVID-19 pandemic and his hypertension, degenerative disc disorder long-term, debilitating effects from a...
To continue reading
Request your trial