United States v. Edmond
| Decision Date | 23 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Crim. Action No. 89-162 (EGS) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAYFUL EDMOND, III, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
In 1990, Defendant Rayful Edmond, III ("Mr. Edmond") was sentenced to life in prison after a jury convicted him on various charges stemming from his leading role in a large-scale cocaine distribution operation in the District of Columbia. United States v. Edmond, 52 F.3d 1080, 1087 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Nearly thirty years later, the government moved to reduce Mr. Edmond's sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b)(2)(C), which expressly authorizes a district court, on the government's motion, to reduce a defendant's sentence if, after sentencing, the defendant provided substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another person. During the Rule 35(b) motion hearing, the Court heard sworn testimony from a number of witnesses, including the Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") who prosecuted this case and testified that Mr. Edmond's more than thirty years in prison and his decades-long cooperation have made him a changed man. See generally Mot. Hr'g Tr. (Oct. 16, 2019), ECF No. 273.1
What troubles the Court deeply, however, is that Mr. Edmond stands convicted of having run "the largest cocaine distribution operation in the history of the nation's capital." Edmond, 52 F.3d at 1091. Although there are no statutorily defined victims in this case, it is beyond dispute that Mr. Edmond's involvement in the criminal enterprise damaged this community deeply and resulted in the destruction of the lives of many individuals. See Joint Status Report, ECF No. 264 at 1; see also Gov't's Resp., ECF No. 224 at 2. To obtain the views of the community regarding the potential for a reduction in Mr. Edmond's sentence, the Court appointed the Attorney General of the District of Columbia (the "Attorney General") as amicus curiae. With a sample size of more than five hundred residents, a key conclusion from the data collected by the Attorney General is clear: "the community is starkly divided as to whether the Court should reduce Mr. Edmond's sentence." Br. of D.C. Att'y Gen. as Amicus Curiae ("Amicus Br."), ECF No. 246 at 4.
The parties agree that a sentence reduction is warranted. The parties, however, disagree on the amount by which the Courtshould reduce Mr. Edmond's sentence. The government recommends Mr. Edmond's mandatory life sentence be reduced to forty-years' imprisonment based on its assessment of his substantial assistance and the gravity of his crimes. Gov't's Resentencing Recommendation, ECF No. 249 at 1. Seeking a greater sentence reduction, Mr. Edmond recommends that his sentence be reduced to a sentence of fifteen years' incarceration, citing his substantial assistance and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. E.g., Def.'s Proposed Findings of Facts & Conclusions of Law ("Def.'s Post-Hr'g Br."), ECF No. 300 at 18; Joint Status Report, ECF No. 264 at 2.
In deciding the Rule 35(b) motion, the parties agree that the Court should employ a two-part inquiry, and the Court may consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See, e.g., Gov't's Mot. to Reduce Sentence ("Gov't's Mot."), ECF No. 215 at 6-7; Def.'s Resp., ECF No. 228 at 2; Gov't's Post-Hr'g Br., ECF No. 298 at 3. Under the Rule 35(b) two-step analysis, the Court must first find that Mr. Edmond has provided substantial assistance, and then decide the extent to which Mr. Edmond's sentence should be reduced. Contrary to the government's position, however, nothing in the text of Rule 35(b) limits the Court's discretion to award a reduction by an amount greater than the government's recommendation. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). The Court deems it appropriate to consider theSection 3553(a) factors to guide the Court's exercise of discretion to reduce Mr. Edmond's sentence by an amount greater than the government's recommendation.
In resolving the government's Motion to Reduce Sentence, the Court takes into consideration the unparalleled magnitude of Mr. Edmond's crimes—indeed the Court has not seen other instances of drug dealing of this magnitude—and balances that against the unparalleled magnitude of Mr. Edmond's cooperation. Upon careful consideration of the motion, the parties' submissions, the applicable law, the entire record herein, and for the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that: (1) Mr. Edmond's previously-imposed term of life imprisonment is reduced to twenty years; and (2) a life term of supervised release is warranted. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the government's motion.
Between 1985 and 1989, Mr. Edmond led a large-scale cocaine distribution conspiracy. Edmond, 52 F.3d at 1091. Mr. Edmond's operation generated millions of dollars from the wholesale and retail distribution of cocaine and crack cocaine. Presentence Report ("PSR") (Aug. 27, 1990), ECF No. 230 at 6 ¶ 5. According to the government, Mr. Edmond and his associates were "unscrupulous in their pursuit of cold cash," and theircollection of valuable items included: "[e]pensive cars, thousand dollar shirts, gold medallions worth $60,000, diamond encrusted Rolex watches, swimming pools, hundreds of tennis shoes, and wads of $100 bills[.]" Gov't's Mem. in Aid of Sentencing, ECF No. 253 at 4. In April 1989, Mr. Edmond was arrested on various criminal charges. Edmond, 52 F.3d at 1083. Mr. Edmond was committed without bond on April 15, 1989. PSR, ECF No. 230 at 1.
On December 6, 1989, a jury found Mr. Edmond guilty of the following crimes: (1) engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise ("CCE"), in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 848(b), 853 ("Count One"); (2) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine and more than 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 ("Count Two"); (3) unlawfully employing a person under 18 years of age, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 845(b) (recodified at 21 U.S.C. § 861) ("Count Five"); (4) interstate travel in aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a) ("Count Eleven"); and (5) unlawful use of a communications facility, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) ("Counts Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, and Eighteen"). E.g., Edmond, 52 F.3d at 1087; Crim. Docket, ECF No. 1 at 9.
To calculate the sentencing range under the United StatesSentencing Commission's ("Sentencing Commission") 1989 Guidelines Manual, Mr. Edmond's conviction for Count One was excluded from the calculations because that crime carries a mandatory life sentence. E.g., PSR, ECF No. 230 at 14 ¶ 28; Probation Mem., ECF No. 265 at 2 n.1. Mr. Edmond's convictions for Counts Two, Five, Eleven, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, and Eighteen were grouped together pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(d). PSR, ECF No. 230 at 14 ¶ 28. The base offense level was 36 because the "offenses involv[ed] the distribution of more than 50 kilograms of cocaine" under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(3). Id.; see also Sentencing Hr'g Tr. (Sept. 17, 1990), ECF No. 255 at 53 ().
Mr. Edmond's base offense level was then increased by six levels. See PSR, ECF No. 230 at 14 ¶¶ 30-31, 15 ¶¶ 32-34; see also Sentencing Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 255 at 53-56. First, two levels were added for the possession of a dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Id. at 14 ¶ 30; see also Sentencing Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 255 at 53 (). Next, four levels were added as a role adjustment under U.S.S.G.§ 3B1.1(a) because "[Mr. Edmond] was the leader of an organization involving more than five participants." PSR, ECF No. 230 at 14 ¶ 31; see also Sentencing Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 255 at 55-56. Although the PSR added two levels for an obstruction of justice adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, the sentencing judge ultimately rejected that adjustment. See PSR, ECF No. 230 at 15 ¶ 33; see also Sentencing Hr'g Tr., ECF No. 255 at 56. As a result, the adjusted offense level was 42. Def.'s Am. Sentencing Mem., ECF No. 260 at 8.
Judge Charles R. Richey sentenced Mr. Edmond on February 13, 1990, and entered the Judgment and Commitment on February 16, 1990. Judgment & Commitment ("J & C") (Feb. 16, 1990), ECF No. 250 at 1. Judge Richey sentenced Mr. Edmond to life imprisonment on Counts One, Two, and Five; sixty months on Count Eleven; and forty-eight months on Counts Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, and Eighteen. Id. at 2. Judge Richey ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Id. Judge Richey imposed the following terms of supervised release: (1) eight years on Count Five; (2) four years on Count Two; and (3) three years on Counts Eleven, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, and Eighteen, to run concurrently. Id. at 3. Judge Richey ordered Mr. Edmond to pay a special assessment of $400. Id.
On July 30, 1990, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit"), on its own motion, vacated the sentences of Mr. Edmond and his co-defendants, and remanded the cases for resentencing. E.g., United States v. Edmond, No. 90-3049 (D.C. Cir. July 30, 1990) (per curiam) (unpublished); App., No. 15-3063 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 10, 2016), Doc. 1603360 at 113-14; Gov't's Consolidated Br., United States v. Jones, Nos. 15-3063, 15-3064, 2016 WL 3213186, at *4 (D.C. Cir. June 10, 2016); PSR, ECF No. 230 at 3; Crim. Docket, ECF No. 1-1 at 23. Following the directive of the D.C. Circuit, Mr. Edmond "was brought before [Judge Richey] for resentencing on September 17, 1990[.]" Order, ECF No. 219 at 1.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial