United States v. Dale
| Decision Date | 18 January 2022 |
| Docket Number | 92-81127 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD DALE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
Defendant Edward Dale has filed a motion asking the Court to reduce his prison sentence to time served under the compassionate release provision of 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), section 603(b)(1) of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub L 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. The Honorable Avern Cohn had sentenced Dale in 1996 to life in prison for his part in eight drug-related homicides. Dale presents multiple arguments for why extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction, but all must be discounted save for his rehabilitation, which appears to be significant and sincere. However, that personal reformation does not amount to “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction, ” as section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) requires. Moreover, the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) particularly the seriousness of his offenses, counsel against his release. His motion, therefore, will be denied.
Defendant Edward Dale currently is serving a life sentence for his role in a violent drug trafficking conspiracy that began in the mid-1980s. Dale was a teenager at the time he first joined the group. The organization, known as “The Best Friends, ” was responsible for at least eight homicides. Forty-four defendants were indicted as part of the organization, and eight, including Dale, eventually went to trial. The trial lasted 32 days and involved around 70 witnesses. Dale was convicted of three of the murders (intentional killing in furtherance of conducting a continuing criminal enterprise), as well as conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and using a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Judge Cohn imposed concurrent life sentences, which were mandated by the sentencing guideline regime in effect at the time. Dale's convictions and sentences were affirmed. United States v. Polk, 182 F.3d 919 (6th Cir. 1999). He has been imprisoned for more than 26 years.
Dale also has a prior criminal history. He first became involved in the Best Friends gang around the age of 15 or 16. At 19, he was convicted of obstructing a police officer and resisting arrest. Two years later, he was charged with possession of a loaded firearm in association with stealing a vehicle. He remained involved with the Best Friends while on parole for that offense. He was 22 and 23 years old when he committed the murders in this case.
Dale's post-judgment activity has been robust. He filed multiple motions and has gone to the court of appeals six times. More recently, he moved for relief under the First Step Act, arguing that he should be resentenced because his crime involved cocaine base, and the penalties for transacting in certain quantities of that substance were altered by legislation. ECF No. 2365. That motion remains pending before this Court.
Dale is presently imprisoned at FCI Talladega, a medium-security facility in Talladega, Alabama. Mot. for Compassionate Release, ECF No. 2472, PageID.19635, 19649-50. The facility currently houses 943 inmates. As of January 17, 2022, 49 inmates and 12 staff members were infected with COVID-19, five inmates had died from COVID-19, and 272 inmates had been infected and recovered from the virus. Additionally, 827 inmates (including Dale) and 165 staff members have been vaccinated. See https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/.
Dale is a 52-year-old African American male. His medical records confirm that he suffers from type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and other physical ailments. Med. Records, ECF No. 2473-1, PageID.19717. He takes several medications to control his diabetes, including Metformin, Atorvastatin, Lisinopril, and insulin. Ibid.
Dale contends that he has reformed himself in prison. His disciplinary record is nearly spotless, with no reported incidents over the last 10 years. Case Manager Letter, ECF No. 24722, PageID.19658. He has exhibited a strong work ethic, working at the prison's education library and, currently, as a Health Services Orderly. Mot. for Compassionate Release, ECF No. 2472, PageID.19633. He has obtained his GED and encourages other inmates to do the same, and he has completed extensive vocational and social programming, including a number of courses focused on preparing for reentry. Ibid.; Program Review, ECF No. 2472-5, PageID.19682. He has submitted more than 20 letters from BOP staff attesting to his rehabilitation and noting his mentorship, professionalism, positive outlook, peaceful nature, and preparedness to work in and contribute to the civilian world. Letters from BOP Staff, Ex. B, ECF No. 2472-2; Ex. A, ECF No. 2485-2.
If released, Dale plans to live with his niece in Glendale, Arizona, where his sisters and a large number of his extended family members also live. His sister states that she will employ Dale in one of her businesses maintaining properties, and his other sister states that she will provide him with other support to help him get back on his feet. Other family members have also offered to help him find employment, training, housing, and a community outside of prison.
Dale requested a reduction in sentence from the warden at FCI Talladega based on his underlying health issues and the length of his sentence. The warden denied his request on July 7, 2020. Dale then asked the Warden to reconsider, which the warden also denied. Dale subsequently filed the present motion for compassionate release.
By now it is well understood that, generally, “a federal court ‘may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed, '” United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 832 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)), and that this “rule comes with a few exceptions, one of which permits compassionate release, ” ibid. The request for such relief must be presented by a motion filed in federal court, either by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), “[o]r it may come through a motion filed by the inmate after he has ‘fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the [prisoner]'s behalf' or after ‘the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the [prisoner]'s facility, whichever is earlier, '” ibid. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)).
Upon a proper motion via either avenue, the Court may, “[a]fter ‘considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) . . . reduce the prisoner's sentence if it finds that ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction' or if the ‘[prisoner] is at least 70 years of age,' has ‘served at least 30 years,' and meets certain other conditions.” Ibid. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), (ii)). Dale relies on subparagraph (i) of the statute. Under that provision, the Court can order a reduction of a sentence, even to time served, by following a procedure that the court of appeals has distilled into three steps. First, consider whether “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” Second, determine if the “reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” Third, “consider[] the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1004-06 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)).
The Sentencing Commission's policy statement to be considered under step two is found in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, which simply recites the statute. The commentary adds gloss, which does not have the force of law. United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir.), reconsideration denied, 929 F.3d 317 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc) ( that the “commentary has no independent legal force - it serves only to interpret the Guidelines' text, not to replace or modify it”). That has led the court of appeals in its evolving guidance on the subject to hold that district courts should dispense with step two when the motion for compassionate release comes from a prisoner and not the BOP. United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1109 (6th Cir. 2020) () (citing United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228, 234 (2d Cir. 2020)).
More recently, the court of appeals took the explanation a step further. In United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516 (6th Cir. 2021), the court ascribed Congress's amendment of section 3582(c)(1) to the BOP's “rare[]” exercise of its power to move for sentence reductions, that “the program was plagued by mismanagement, ” and that “the BOP ‘ha[d] no timeliness standards for reviewing . . . requests.'” 984 F.3d at 518 (quoting United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228, 23132 (2d Cir. 2020)). It reaffirmed Jones's holding “that § 1B1.13 is not an applicable policy statement for compassionate-release motions brought directly by inmates, and so district courts need not consider it when ruling on those motions.” Id. at 519-20. It then held that “in the absence of an applicable policy statement for inmate-filed compassionate-release motions, district courts have discretion to define ‘extraordinary and compelling' on their own initiative.” Ibid. However, the defendant still must satisfy the other two requirements, and his “failure to meet any one of those criteria” will result in the denial of his motion. United States v. Tomes, 990 F.3d 500, 502 (6th Cir. 2021).
The government concedes that...
To continue reading
Request your trial