United States v. Craig
| Decision Date | 13 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION ELH-18-0450 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. BYRON CRAIG, JR., Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
BYRON CRAIG, JR., Defendant
CRIMINAL ACTION No. ELH-18-0450
United States District Court, D. Maryland
May 13, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ELLEN L. HOLLANDER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The self-represented defendant, Byron Craig, Jr., has filed a motion for reconsideration of compassionate release (ECF 298), as well as a motion to modify or terminate his restitution obligation. ECF 305. He is currently serving a 70-month sentence at USP Lewisburg for the offense of wire and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. Judge Stephanie Thacker, who sat in this Court by designation, presided at Craig's trial.[1] As part of the sentence, Judge Thacker entered an order of restitution in the amount of $170, 837.00, joint and several with four codefendants.
By Memorandum Opinion (ECF 288) and Order (ECF 289) of April 20, 2021, I denied defendant's earlier request for compassionate release (ECF 251).[2] He has filed a “Motion For Court to Nunc Pro Tunc Reevaluate The Basis Of Its Previous Decision Denying My Request For Compassionate Release Based On Oversights And New Developments”. ECF 298. Notably,
Craig contends that his release is warranted at this juncture because he is the sole possible caregiver for his ailing wife. See ECF 298 at 8. He also claims that he should be released in light of his obesity and the continued danger posed by COVID-19. Id. at 5-7. Craig has submitted several exhibits to support his motion. See ECF 297; ECF 298-1; ECF 299; ECF 300; ECF 313. He has also filed a supplement to the motion. ECF 317. I shall refer to ECF 298 and ECF 317 collectively as the “Motion.”
The government opposes the Motion. ECF 320. It argues that the Motion is, in essence, a new motion for compassionate release, subject to administrative exhaustion, which Craig has not satisfied. Alternatively, it maintains that granting the Motion would be inappropriate because Craig has failed to present an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release. And, even if Craig has done so, the government argues that his release would be inconsistent with the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Craig has replied. ECF 322.[3]
In addition, Craig has filed a “Motion To Modify Or Terminate Restitution Payment Obligations” (ECF 305), accompanied by a memorandum of law. ECF 305-1 (collectively, the “Restitution Motion”). Among other things, Craig asserts that the Court failed to make “any factual findings” to support the award of restitution. ECF 305-1 at 1. In addition, he claims that he has experienced “material changes” to his “economic circumstances.” Id. at 2. Further, Craig argues that Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) officials have improperly collected restitution payments from his inmate trust account, in violation of the terms specified in the Amended Judgment (ECF 177). See ECF 305-1 at 10-11.
The government opposes the Restitution Motion. ECF 315. It also filed a supplement to its opposition, clarifying that the BOP had garnished restitution payments from defendant, in an
amount totaling approximately $950.00. ECF 319 (the “Supplement”). But, the Supplement provides that the United States Attorney's Office (“USAO”) has “consulted with the BOP, and the BOP has indicated that it will no longer garnish restitution payments from Mr. Craig's trust account.” Id. Craig has replied. ECF 321; ECF 323.[4]
With respect to both the Motion and the Restitution Motion, defendant asks the Court to appoint counsel for him. See ECF 298 at 2; ECF 305-1 at 2.
No hearing is necessary. For the reasons that follow, I shall deny defendant's request for the appointment of counsel. Further, I shall deny the Motion and the Restitution Motion, without prejudice.
I. Procedural and Factual Background[5]
On January 8, 2019, Craig and four codefendants were charged in a thirty-seven count Superseding Indictment in connection with a bank fraud conspiracy scheme. ECF 46. In particular, defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count One); wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts Two through Six, and Ten); bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Count Thirteen); fraud/misuse of a social security number, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (Counts Fourteen through Eighteen, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three); and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (Counts Twenty-Six through Thirty, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five).
Craig proceeded to trial before Judge Thacker in October 2019. ECF 127. After a four day trial, the jury convicted Craig of Count One of the Superseding Indictment. ECF 139. He was acquitted of the remaining charges. See ECF 139; ECF 168, ¶ 2.
The evidence at trial showed that Craig organized a scheme to defraud banks and car dealerships.[6] As part of the scheme, the codefendants acquired the social security numbers of victims, some of whom were minor children, and used the social security numbers and other fraudulent documentation to obtain auto loans. ECF 168 (Presentence Report or “PSR”) at 4-9. Then, the defendants purchased vehicles with the loans and later resold the vehicles to buyers on Craigslist. Id. The total intended loss was about $300, 000. Id. ¶ 30.
Sentencing was held on January 13, 2020. ECF 173. At the time of sentencing, the defendant was 54 years of age. ECF 168 at 3. He had neither a high school diploma nor a GED. Id. He stood five feet, six inches tall and weighed about 205 pounds. Id. ¶ 89.
Defendant reported that when he was fourteen years of age, he was severely beaten and thrown over a bridge, for which he was hospitalized for five days. Id. ¶ 90. When the defendant was sixteen, he was shot in the head by someone who mistook him for his brother. Id. ¶ 91. And, when defendant was 35, he was again shot by someone who mistook him for his brother. Id. ¶ 93.
According to the PSR, Craig had a final offense level of 27 for Count One. Id. ¶ 45. And, he had a total of six criminal history points. Id. ¶ 54. This resulted in a Criminal History Category of III. Id. Based on a final offense level of 27 and a Criminal History Category of III, the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.” or “Guidelines”) called for a term of imprisonment ranging from 87 to 108 months. Id. ¶ 110.
Judge Thacker sentenced the defendant to a below-Guidelines sentence of 70 months in prison, followed by five years of supervised release. ECF 174 (Judgment); see also ECF 177 (Amended Judgment). Defendant was allowed to surrender to the BOP on March 16, 2020. ECF 177 at 2. In addition, Judge Thacker ordered restitution in the amount of $170, 837.00, joint and several with the codefendants. Id. at 5.
Of import here, the Amended Judgment specified that payment shall be due “[i]n full immediately.” Id. at 6. But, it also provided that “[n]o restitution or other financial penalty shall be collected through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.” Id. (emphasis omitted). The Court notes that the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (the “IFRP”) is “a workprogram instituted by [BOP] to encourage ‘each sentenced inmate to meet his or her legitimate financial obligations.' The program provides for development of a financial plan that allows inmates to pay certain enumerated obligations, including court-ordered assessments, restitutions, and fines.” Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548, 548 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 545.10), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1091 (1999).
Significantly, no appeal was filed by Craig, either as to the sentence or the amount of restitution.
Craig, who is now 56 years of age, began serving his sentence at FCI Schuylkill. ECF 253 at 3; see ECF 253-1. In April 2020, defendant submitted a request to the Warden for compassionate release. ECF 253 at 3; ECF 253-1. His request was denied. ECF 253-1.
Thereafter, on November 24, 2020, Craig filed a motion for compassionate release with this Court. See ECF 251; ECF 253. Relevant here, the motion asserted that defendant's obesity rendered him particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 and thus constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release. ECF 253 at 2.
The Court denied the motion by Memorandum Opinion (ECF 288) and Order (ECF 289) of April 20, 2021. Although I found that, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, defendant's obesity amounted to an extraordinary and compelling for his release, I determined that his release would be inconsistent with the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). ECF 288 at 15-18 Thus, I denied the motion, without prejudice. Id. at 18; see ECF 289.
In the interim, on April 1, 2021, Craig was transferred to Lewisburg USP. See ECF 298 at 5; ECF 320 at 3; see also Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last accessed May 13, 2022).[7] Eight months later, in December 2021, Craig submitted several filings to the Court, asking the Court to reconsider its denial of his motion for compassionate release. See ECF 297; ECF 298. He later supplemented those filings. See ECF 299; ECF 300; ECF 313; ECF 317. There is no indication, however, that Craig ever submitted a request to the Warden of USP Lewisburg for his release.
Principally, defendant argues that his release is warranted so that he can care for his wife, who was diagnosed with a brain aneurysm. ECF 298 at 12-14. According to a letter dated March 11, 2022, from a Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner at the University of Maryland Faculty Physicians, Inc., surgery was anticipated “in the next few weeks to months.” ECF 317 at 4; see ECF 313 (same). Craig also claims that his continued incarceration poses a risk of severe illness to him, in light of his obesity and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. ECF 298 at 5-7.
Moreover, Craig has asked the Court to “modify or terminate the erroneous restitution payment obligations the court imposed upon him.”...
To continue reading
Request your trial