United States v. Hall

• Decision Date: 28 February 2022
• Docket Number: 3:95-cr-00005-FDW
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. MARC PIERRE HALL, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. MARC PIERRE HALL, Defendant.

No. 3:95-cr-00005-FDW

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

February 28, 2022

ORDER

Frank D. Whitney, United States District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on several motions filed by Defendant, who appears pro se, asking this Court to reduce his sentence pursuant to section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-135 (2018), and for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(a), as well as related motions seeking a hearing and for consideration of supplemental evidence in support of his motions. (Doc. Nos 1048, 1049, 1053, 1071, 1076, 1081). In accordance with district practice, ^[1] the United States Probation Office prepared a Supplemental Presentence Report pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018 (hereafter, “Supplemental First Step Act PSR”). (Doc. No. 1018). The Government responded in opposition to a reduction in Defendant's sentence (Doc. No. 1065), and as directed by the Court, (Doc. No. 1089), supplemented its response (Doc. No. 1091). Defendant also supplemented his previous pleadings (Doc. Nos 1090, 1095), and filed several motions regarding his response time to do so (Doc. Nos. 1092, 1094). Defendant also seeks courtesy copies of several documents from the docket, (Doc. No. 1096), and Rule 11 sanctions against the Government attorneys in this matter (Doc. No. 1097). The Court addresses the various motions below.

I. Background

On December 15, 1995, a jury convicted Defendant of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack and powder cocaine within 1, 000 feet of a playground and school in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 860 (“Count 1”); two counts of carrying a firearm or destructive device during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (“Counts 10 and 11”); and maliciously damaging and destroying a building and real property used in and affective interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (“Count 12”). (Doc. No. 345). The Government filed a notice under Section 851 indicating it intended to seek an enhanced penalty based on Defendant's prior convictions for felony drug offenses.

At the sentencing hearing on April 23, 1996, the court found Defendant's: 1) total offense level to be 43; 2) criminal history category to be III; and 3) guideline range to be life imprisonment for the drug conspiracy offense in Count 1 based on 21 U.S.C. § 851 enhancing the statutory minimum sentence, five years consecutive for the first Section 924(c) offense in Count 10, life imprisonment consecutive for the second Section 924(c) offense in Count 11, and not more than forty years concurrent for the destruction of property offense in Count 12. (See Doc. No. 970; Doc. No. 971, p. 69; Transcript of Sentencing Hearing, April 23, 1996). The Court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on Count 1; a term of 480 months imprisonment on Count 12, to be served concurrently; a term of 60 months imprisonment on Count 10 to be served consecutive to the terms imposed on Counts 1 and 12, and a term of life imprisonment on Count 11 to be served consecutive to the terms imposed on Counts 1, 10, and 12 . (Doc. No. 971, pp. 72-73). The Court also imposed a term of supervised release for ten years for Count 1, three years on Count 10, and five years on Counts 11 and 12, all to run concurrently. (Id. at p. 73). Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence, both of which were affirmed by the Fourth Circuit. United States v. Hall, 129 F.3d 1261, 1997 WL 712885 (4th Cir. 1997); cert. denied 524 U.S. 932 (1998). Defendant has also filed multiple motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his sentence, and the denial of those motions has been affirmed or dismissed on appeal. See United States v. Hall, No. 3:95-CR-5-FDW-1, 2021 WL 4129619, at *1 (W.D. N.C. Sept. 9, 2021) (collecting cases), aff'd as modified, No. 21-7350, 2021 WL 5445974 (4th Cir. Nov. 22, 2021).

The Court subsequently denied Defendant's motions for sentence reduction made pursuant to Amendments 706, 750, and 782 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, finding there was no change in the Guideline calculation for Defendant. (Doc. Nos. 828, 921, 962). Accordingly, Defendant's original sentence remains in place, of which he has served approximately 325 months as of the date of this Order, and he does not have a projected release date because he is serving multiple life sentences. (Doc. Nos. 920, p. 4; 1018, pp. 3, 6).

II. Sentence Reduction Pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act

Defendant seeks relief pursuant to Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, which made the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, retroactive. The Fair Sentencing Act described itself as intended “[t]o restore fairness to Federal cocaine sentencing.” Id., 124 Stat. at 2372. In Section 2, labeled “Cocaine Sentencing Disparity Reduction, ” the Fair Sentencing Act increased the quantities applicable to cocaine base to 280 grams for the ten-year mandatory minimum and to 28 grams for the five-year mandatory minimum. Id. § 2, 124 Stat. at 2372 (codified at 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)). In Section 3, the Fair Sentencing Act eliminated the mandatory minimum sentence for “simple possession” of cocaine base. Fair Sentencing Act § 3, 124 Stat. at 2372 (codified at 21 U.S.C. § 844(a)).

With its enactment in 2018, Section 404 of the First Step Act gives retroactive effect to the changes made by Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and allows the court that imposed a sentence for a covered offense to exercise its discretion to impose a reduced sentence as if Section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed. Id. The Fourth Circuit has explained the impact:

[B]efore the Fair Sentencing Act, crack cocaine trafficking offenses fell into three brackets: (1) offenses involving 50 or more grams, which were punished by 10 years to life in prison, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) (2006); (2) offenses involving between 5 and 50 grams, which were punished by 5 to 40 years in prison, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2006); and (3) offenses involving less than 5 grams (or an unspecified amount), which were punished by 0 to 20 years in prison, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2006). The Fair Sentencing Act's amendments to Subsections 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) and (B)(iii) shifted all three brackets upward, so that now (1) offenses involving 280 or more grams are punished by 10 years to life in prison, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(iii) (2018); (2) offenses involving between 28 and 280 grams are punished by 5 to 40 years in prison, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2018); and (3) offenses involving less than 28 grams (or an unspecified amount) are punished by 0 to 20 years in prison, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (2018).

United States v. Woodson, 962 F.3d 812, 815 (4th Cir. 2020).

A. Standard of Review

This court must first determine whether Defendant's sentence satisfies the explicit criteria to qualify for reduction under the First Step Act, and, if so, then the court is given discretion to impose a reduced sentence as if the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed. The Fourth Circuit has explained:

[A] district court presented with a First Step Act motion to reduce a sentence must first determine whether the sentence qualifies for reduction - i.e., whether it is eligible for consideration on the merits. This eligibility determination is not a function of discretion but simply of applying the explicit criteria set forth in the First Step Act. First, the sentence sought to be reduced must be for a “covered offense” - that is, “a violation of a Federal criminal statute the statutory penalties for which were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, and that was committed before August 3, 2010.” First Step Act, § 404(a), 132 Stat. at 5222 (citation omitted). We have concluded that a “covered offense” includes violations under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), (b)(1)(B)(iii), and (b)(1)(C). Second, the motion for a reduction must be addressed to the court that imposed the subject sentence. First Step Act, § 404(b), 132 Stat. at 5222; cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (requiring that § 2255 motions challenging sentences be made to “the court which imposed the sentence”). And third, the sentence must not have been “previously imposed or previously reduced” under the Fair Sentencing Act and must not have been the subject of a motion made after enactment of the First Step Act that was denied “after a complete review of the motion on the merits.” First Step Act, § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222.

Upon determining that a sentence qualifies for review on the merits, the court is then given discretion to impose a reduced sentence as if the Fair Sentencing Act were in effect at the time the covered offense was committed. First Step Act, § 404(b), 132 Stat. at 5222. The stated policy governing the exercise of this discretion is to bring a sentence that is qualified for reduction in line with a sentence that the court would have imposed under the Fair Sentencing Act had it been in effect. [See Fact Sheet, Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, The First Step Act of 2018 (S. 3649) - as Introduced (Nov. 15, 2018)].

To determine the sentence that the court would have imposed under the Fair Sentencing Act, the court must engage in a brief analysis that involves the recalculation of the Sentencing Guidelines in light of intervening case law and a brief reconsideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). And in considering the § 3553(a) factors, the court can take into account a defendant's

...