United States v. Gorney

• Decision Date: 28 February 2022
• Docket Number: 1:17-CR-83
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSEPH DAMON GORNEY
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOSEPH DAMON GORNEY

No. 1:17-CR-83

United States District Court, E.D. Texas

February 28, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Marcia A. Crone, United States District Judge

Pending before the court is Defendant Joseph Damon Gorney's (“Gorney”) Motion for Sentence Reduction/Compassionate Release Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (#41) and Motion for Appointment of Counsel with respect to such motion (#42). The Government filed a response in opposition (#46). United States Probation and Pretrial Services (“Probation”) conducted an investigation and submitted a report. Having considered Gorney's motion, the Government's response, Probation's report, the record, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the motions should be denied.

I. Background

On June 7, 2017, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division, returned a four-count Indictment charging Gorney in Count One with Felon in Possession of a Firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); in Count Two with Possession with Intent to Distribute a Schedule II Controlled Substance (Methamphetamine), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); in Count Three with Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and in Count Four with Violent Felon in Possession of Body Armor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 931(a)(1). On August 16, 2017, Gorney pleaded guilty to Counts One and Two of the Indictment pursuant to a binding plea agreement. On January

1

26, 2018, the court sentenced him to 33 months' imprisonment as to each count, to be served concurrently, followed by 3 years of supervised release as to each count, to be served concurrently, pursuant to the plea agreement. Gorney did not file an appeal or seek collateral review of his convictions. Gorney is currently housed at Federal Correctional Institution Yazoo City Medium (“FCI Yazoo City Medium”), located in Yazoo City, Mississippi. His projected released date is August 31, 2022.

II. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Gorney requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in filing a motion for sentence reduction/compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (“The right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further.”); see Garza v. Idaho, U.S., 139 S.Ct. 738, 749 (2019); McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494-95 (1991); United States v. Manso-Zamora, 991 F.3d 694, 696 (6th Cir. 2021) (finding that “every federal court of appeals to address the issue has agreed that there is no constitutional (or statutory) right to appointed counsel in § 3582(c) proceedings.”); Whitaker v. Collier, 862 F.3d 490, 501 (5th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct. 1172 (2018); In re Sepulvado, 707 F.3d 550, 554 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 952 (2013). Specifically, the Supreme Court of the United States has stated:

Our cases establish that the right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further. Thus we have rejected suggestions that we establish a right to counsel on discretionary appeals. We think that since a defendant has no federal constitutional right to counsel when pursuing a discretionary appeal on direct review of his conviction, a fortiori, he has no such right when attacking a conviction that has long since become final upon exhaustion of the appellate process

2

Finley, 481 U.S. at 555 (internal citations omitted).

The court may, however, in the interest of justice, appoint counsel to assist a defendant in the pursuit of post-conviction relief where a defendant has raised nonfrivolous claims with factually and/or legally complex issues. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5^th Cir. 1995) (“After [a defendant's first appeal], the decision whether to appoint counsel rests in the discretion of the district court.”); accord United States v. Hereford, 385 Fed.Appx. 366, 368 (5^th Cir. 2010).

The exercise of discretion in this area is guided . . . by certain basic principles. When applying this standard and exercising its discretion in this field, the court should determine both whether the petition presents significant legal issues, and if the appointment of counsel will benefit the petitioner and the court in addressing this claim.

United States v. Molina-Flores, No. 3:16-CR-130-N (19), 2018 WL 10050316, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2018) (quoting Jackson v. Coleman, No. 3:11-cv-1837, 2012 WL 4504485, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2012)); see Scoggins v. MacEachern, No. 04-10814-PBS, 2010 WL 3169416, at *1 (D. Mass. Aug. 10, 2010) (“In order to obtain appointed counsel, ‘an indigent litigant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances in his or her case to justify the appointment of counsel.' The rare cases warranting appointment of counsel in the interests of justice typically involve nonfrivolous claims with factually and/or legally complex issues and a petitioner who is severely hampered in his ability to investigate the facts.” (quoting Cookish v. Cunningham, 787 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1986))).

Gorney is not entitled to the appointment of counsel to assist him with seeking a sentence reduction/compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. See Finley, 481 U.S. at 555; Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1010-11 (declining to recognize constitutional or statutory right to assistance of counsel

3

in bringing § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction); United States v. Vasquez, No. CR 2:18-1282-S-1, 2020 WL 3000709, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 2, 2020) (“There is no right to counsel in § 3582 or other post-appellate criminal proceedings.”). Moreover, Gorney provides no basis for the court to conclude that the appointment of counsel would benefit him or the court in addressing his motion. A motion “for compassionate release is not particularly complex factually or legally.” United States v. Drayton, No. 10-200018, 2020 WL 2572402, at *1 (D. Kan. May 21, 2020); see United States v. Wilfred, No. 07-351, 2020 WL 4698993, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 13, 2020). In any event, Gorney has failed to raise any nonfrivolous or potentially viable claims or any factually or legally complex issues that could arguably justify the appointment of post-conviction counsel. Gorney is 42 years old and there is no indication that he is seriously ill, disabled, or otherwise a candidate for compassionate release. Thus, the court finds that the discretionary appointment of counsel is not warranted. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) (allowing appointment of counsel under certain circumstances when “the court determines that the interests of justice so require”). Accordingly, Gorney's Motion for Appointment of Counsel must be rejected.

III. Motion for Reduction in Sentence/Compassionate Release

On December 21, 2018, former President Trump signed the First Step Act of 2018 into law. See First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. The Act, in part, amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), which gives the court discretion, in certain circumstances, to reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment:

(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (“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

4

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-

(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or

(ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years in prison, pursuant to a sentence imposed under section 3559(c), for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is currently imprisoned, and a determination has been made by the Director of the [BOP] that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as provided under section 3142(g);

and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission . . . .

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). This provision is commonly referred to as “compassionate release.”

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Prior to the First Step Act, only the Director of the BOP could file a motion seeking compassionate release. See United States v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 467 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Prior to the passage of the First Step Act . . . courts lacked the power to adjudicate motions for compassionate release.”), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 920 (2020); Tuozzo v. Shartle, No. 13-4897, 2014 WL 806450, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2014) (denying petitioner's motion for compassionate release because no motion for his release was filed by the BOP). The First Step Act amended § 3582(c) by providing a defendant the means to appeal the BOP's decision not to file a motion for compassionate release on the defendant's behalf. United States v. Cantu, 423 F.Supp.3d 345, 347 (S.D. Tex. 2019); United States v. Bell, No. 3:93-CR-302-M, 2019 WL 1531859, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2019).

5

The plain language of the statute, however, makes it clear that the court may not grant a defendant's motion for compassionate release unless the defendant has complied with the administrative exhaustion requirement. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Garrett, 15 F.4th 335, 337 (5th Cir. 2021) (“[T]o file a proper motion for compassionate release in the district court, a prisoner must first exhaust the available...