United States v. Haworth

• Docket Number: CR 95-0491 JB
• Decision Date: 22 November 2023
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD HAWORTH, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD HAWORTH, Defendant.

No. CR 95-0491 JB

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

November 22, 2023

Alexander M. M. Uballez United States Attorney Shana B Long Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney's Office Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for the Plaintiff

Richard Haworth Lompoc, California and Gary Mitchell Mitchell Law Office Ruidoso, New Mexico and Michael V. Davis Corrales New Mexico and Mark H. Robert Federal Public Defender Federal Public Defender's Office Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for the Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ^[1]

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Sentence Reduction Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Compassionate Release), filed May 20, 2021 (Doc. 1490)(“Motion”). The primary issues are whether: (i) the Court should grant Defendant Richard Haworth's Motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and reduce his life-plus-1260-month sentence because the COVID-19 pandemic Haworth's mother's poor health, and the length of Haworth's sentence constitute extraordinary and compelling circumstances; (ii) whether a reduction in Haworth's sentence is consistent with applicable policy statements from the United States Sentencing Commission; and (iii) whether a sentence reduction aligns with the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The Court concludes that: (i) Haworth's case does not present extraordinary and compelling circumstances, because Haworth is not at high risk of suffering complications should he contract COVID-19 and, moreover, because he refused the COVID-19 vaccination; (ii) the Sentencing Commission's policy statements are a neutral factor, because there is currently no applicable Sentencing Commission policy statement; and (iii) the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors do not support Haworth's release, because a time-served sentence is not sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect the public from Haworth, nor to provide Haworth with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Court takes its facts from: (i) the Indictment, filed September 7, 1995 (Doc. 1)(“Indictment”); (ii) the Motion; and (iii) the United States' Sealed Response to Pro Se Motion for Motion [sic] to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), filed May 5, 2022 (Doc. 1494)(“Response”). On September 7, 1995, Haworth was indicted on numerous charges relating to his alleged involvement in a large marijuana trafficking enterprise. See Response at 2. The charges included multiple counts of murder and attempted murder in furtherance of the criminal enterprise, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, and use and carry of a firearm in connection with a crime of violence. See Response at 2; Indictment ¶¶ 21-22, at 1011.^[2] On October 15, 1996, the United States filed a notice of its intent to seek the death penalty against Haworth. See Response at 1-2; Superseding Notice of Intent to Seek Death Penalty as to Defendant Richard Michael Haworth, filed October 15, 1996 (Doc. 921). Haworth pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement on January 14, 1997, and the Honorable C. LeRoy Hansen, then-United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, sentenced Haworth to a term of life followed by a consecutive term of 1,260 months on November 21, 1997. Response at 3; Judgment in a Criminal Case, filed November 21, 1997 (Doc. 1267)(“Judgment”).

On May 20, 2021, Haworth filed the pro se Motion seeking a reduced sentence. See Motion at 1. In the Motion, Haworth demonstrates that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. See Motion at 2. Haworth argues that the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and at the Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc penitentiary -- in which Haworth is currently imprisoned -- constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. See Motion at 9. Specifically, Haworth notes that he already has contracted tuberculosis while incarcerated, and that the risk of contracting COVID-19 and dying within the BOP system is high. See Motion at 9. Haworth also points to the fact that his elderly mother, who suffers from “medical complications” and recently had a knee replacement, requires assistance that she cannot afford. Motion at 9. Finally, Haworth argues that he would not receive his “lengthy sentence” were he sentenced today, and that his sentence is overly long when compared to other high-profile defendants like “El Chapo.” Motion at 3, 9. In the Motion, Haworth acknowledges he did “bad things,” but alleges he killed only people who tried to kill him first, and that he is “no longer the person [he] was 26 yrs [sic] ago.” Motion at 9. Haworth's release plan indicates that he plans to live with his mother or, in the alternative, with his uncle or ex-wife. See Motion at 12.

On May 24, 2023, Haworth supplemented his Motion with a letter to the Court. See Letter from Richard Haworth to the Court (dated May 24, 2023), filed May 24, 2023 (Doc. 1495)(“May Letter”). In the May Letter, Haworth explains that, if he is granted release, he can assist with the war effort in Ukraine. See May Letter at 1. Haworth states that his fighting in Ukraine would save taxpayer dollars and enable him to do “something,” even if that is “stopping a bullet so that some young person can go on and live their life.” May Letter at 1. Haworth sent an additional letter to the Court on June 15, 2023, in which he clarifies that he is trying to “take every class possible” and has even “taught classes for staff” while incarcerated. Letter from Richard Haworth to the Court (dated June 15, 2023), filed May 24, 2023 (Doc. 1495)(“June Letter”).

The United States responds to the Motion. See Response at 1. The United States does not dispute that Haworth has exhausted his administrative remedies. See Response at 1. The United States explains that extraordinary and compelling circumstances do not warrant Haworth's release, because the BOP has implemented an effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic, see Response at 7-8, because Haworth declined the COVID-19 vaccine when it became available, see Response at 9-13, and because Haworth “has not identified any [COVID-19] risk factors,” Response at 13-14. The United States continues that the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) do not weigh in favor of Haworth's release, because of the seriousness of Haworth's conviction and the danger he continues to pose to the community. See Response at 16.

LAW REGARDING THE GUIDELINES

In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court of the United States of America severed the mandatory provisions from the Sentencing Reform Act, Pub. L No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 1976, thus making Guidelines sentencing ranges effectively advisory. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. at 261. In excising the two sections, the Supreme Court left the remainder of the Sentencing Reform Act intact, including 18 U.S.C. § 3553: “Section 3553(a) remains in effect, and sets forth numerous factors that guide sentencing. Those factors in turn will guide appellate courts, as they have in the past, in determining whether a sentence is unreasonable.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. at 261.

Congress has directed sentencing courts to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to comply with four statutorily defined purposes enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2):

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner ....

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(D).

[A] defendant who has been found guilty of an offense described in any Federal statute . . . shall be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of this chapter so as to achieve the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 3553(a)(2) to the extent that they are applicable in light of all the circumstances of the case.

18 U.S.C. § 3551. To achieve these purposes, § 3553(a) directs sentencing courts to consider: (i) the Guidelines; (ii) the nature of the offense and of the defendant's character; (iii) the available sentences; (iv) the policy favoring uniformity in sentences for defendants who commit similar crimes; (v) the need to provide restitution to victims; and (vi) any pertinent United States Sentencing Commission policy statements in effect on the date of sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7).

Although the Guidelines are no longer mandatory, both the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit have clarified that, while the Guidelines are one of several factors which § 3553(a) enumerates, they are entitled to careful consideration. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 349 (2007)(“The Guidelines as written reflect the fact that the Sentencing Commission examined tens of thousands of sentences and worked with the help of many others in the law enforcement community over a long period of time in an effort to fulfill [its] statutory mandate.”); United States v. Cage, 451 F.3d 585, 593 (10th Cir. 2006)(describing the Guidelines as more than “just one factor among many”). They are...