United States v. Mathis
| Decision Date | 13 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:10-cr-00019 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DAVID MATHIS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Before the Court is Defendant David Mathis's Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (ECF No 359) (“Motion”). The Judge previously assigned to this case, Judge Donetta W. Ambrose, sentenced Mr. Mathis on October 26, 2011. (ECF No. 158.) Mr. Mathis is currently serving a term of imprisonment of 300 months followed by a five-year term of supervised release. (Id.) His anticipated date of release from Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) custody is May 8, 2031. Notably, the sentence imposed was an agreed upon sentence via a written plea agreement between Mr. Mathis and the United States governed by the provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C).
Based on the record before the Court, the Court concludes that Mr Mathis has not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for this Court to reduce his sentence, and that in any event, the application of the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) does not support a reduction in his sentence. Thus, the Court DENIES Mr. Mathis's Motion to Reduce Sentence (ECF No. 359) without prejudice to its reassertion should circumstances later warrant.
Mr. Mathis is no stranger to serious and violent criminal conduct nor to the federal justice system. Between April and July 1994, Mr. Mathis committed a series of five (5) bank/credit union armed robberies. (ECF No. 137, at 8.) During those robberies he engaged in an array of violent and threatening conduct. He told tellers that he would shoot them or even kill them, including putting the barrel of a pistol to the head of a teller (who he had dragged out of her chair by the hair) who was not complying quickly enough for his liking, threatening to kill her upon his count of “15” if other employees did not give Mr. Mathis the money he demanded; he fired his gun into the air or into the ceiling during several of the robberies. (Id.) In each of these robberies, he pointed a gun at one or more tellers, or placed a gun against their head, threatening to kill them if they did not give him the money he demanded within time limits he set, ranging from 20 to 50 seconds.
The worker's compensation claims paid out to the teller/victims of Mr. Mathis's conduct totaled more than $200,000. On February 22, 1995, Mr. Mathis was convicted by his guilty plea of the crime of armed bank robbery and using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. (ECF No. 333.) Mr. Mathis was then sentenced to a total of slightly over fifteen years in federal prison to be followed by a term of supervised release. Mr. Mathis left federal prison in February 2009 on a term of supervised release. He thereafter continued a relationship he had developed in prison with a fellow federal prisoner, Lamont LaPrade.
Mr. Mathis pled guilty to the offense for which he is currently serving his sentence, specifically of knowingly using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, here, armed robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). (ECF Nos. 137, 333.)
Here's what happened in this case, as summarized in detail in the Government's responsive filing (based on Mr. Mathis's change of plea hearing record) and in the Second Revised Presentence Report. (ECF Nos. 137, 363.) In January 2010, Mr. Mathis travelled to the Westmoreland Community Federal Credit Union in Hempfield Township, Pennsylvania with Lamont LaPrade in order to rob it. They were both armed with guns. Upon arrival, things began by Mr. Mathis firing one round from a nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistol, striking a bank teller in the chest. (ECF No. 333, at 22.) Mr. Mathis then fired another round into the wall of the credit union (aiming in the direction of a second teller station) while yelling for the tellers to open the drawers and give him money. (Id.) When a teller was attempting to open the vault for Mr. Mathis, he struck a different teller in the head with his gun. (ECF No. 137, at 5.) While attempting to flee, Mr. Mathis fired two more rounds from the handgun in the direction of a patron trying to drive into the credit union's parking lot, while Mr. LaPrade fired one round from a .45 caliber handgun in the same direction. (ECF No. 333, at 23.) Police apprehended Mr. Mathis the next day at a nearby shopping mall. (Id. at 24.)
It is also important to consider for these purposes that this latest armed robbery was no spur of the moment undertaking by Mr. Mathis. The record reveals that Mr. Mathis and Mr. LaPrade engaged in intricate planning to execute and then (they hoped) escape with their ill-gotten gains. Mr. Mathis compiled a list of ripe credit union targets for robbery in the Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania area. He and Mr. LaPrade roomed at a local motel in preparation for the robbery, and from there went shopping to acquire the clothes they would use for the robbery, including ski masks and a laundry bag, along with gloves, sweatshirts, and new pants. They changed into their “robbery clothes” before heading to the target of their plan.
During flight, Mr. Mathis used his gun to enlist the aid of a citizen who was shoveling snow from his driveway. That civilian's wife provided Mr. Mathis with new clothes and shoes, and Mr. Mathis was given a lift to a local shopping mall, where he was apprehended by an off- duty state trooper. That led to this most recent federal prosecution and the sentence which underlies this Motion.
Mr. Mathis faced federal charges of bank robbery, armed bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm while committing a crime of violence, this last charge (Count 5 of the Indictment) alleging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Mr. Mathis pled guilty to that charge of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), which itself carried a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five (25) years in prison, the sentence which he received pursuant to the binding plea agreement he entered into with the United States. He did not plead guilty to the other charges. This was his second conviction under Section 924(c). (ECF No. 137, at 3-4.)
On June 14, 2022, Mr. Mathis filed the pending (and renewed) pro se Motion for Release/Reduced Sentence pursuant to CARES and/or First Step Act. (ECF No. 359.) In this Motion, Mr. Mathis requests that after he has served two-hundred-and-fifty-two (252) months in BOP custody, he be permitted to serve the last forty-eight (48) months of his imposed sentence on a special term of supervised release. (ECF No. 359, at 5.) This matter is now ripe for decision.
“[A]s a general matter, a court cannot modify a term of imprisonment after it has been imposed without specific authorization.” McMillan v. United States, 257 Fed.Appx. 477, 479 (3d Cir. 2007); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)). One such specific authorization is the First Step Act's amendment of 18 U.S.C. § 3582. As amended, that statute allows a court to reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In addition, the court must consider: (1) whether the defendant has exhausted the appropriate administrative remedies; (2) the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to the extent that they apply; and (3) whether such a reduction is consistent with applicable U.S. Sentencing Commission policy statements. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
After analyzing the record, the Court concludes that Mr. Mathis has administratively exhausted his request to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) for a sentence reduction. The Court also concludes that Mr. Mathis has not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for this Court to reduce his sentence, and that in any event, consideration of the sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) does not support the relief he now seeks.
The Court first considers whether Mr. Mathis has complied with § 3582(c)(1)(A)'s exhaustion requirement. Prior to petitioning a court for relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a defendant must file an administrative request for release or a sentence reduction with the warden of the facility where the defendant is incarcerated; the defendant must then either (1) “fully exhaust[] all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the BOP to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf” or (2) wait 30 days from the date on which the defendant filed an administrative request with the warden. Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Either option for the administrative exhaustion under § 3582(c)(1)(A), standing alone is sufficient to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See United States v. Harris, 973 F.3d 170, 171 (3d Cir. 2020). Administrative exhaustion is mandatory, and a court may not modify a sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A) if exhaustion has not occurred, regardless of whether the Government contests the defendant's asserted exhaustion. United States v. Davidson, No. 16-139-2, 2020 WL 4877255, at *5 & n.4 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2020) (citing United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020)).
In United States v. Davidson, this Court analyzed the requirements under § 3582(c)(1)(A) as to the content of a defendant's administrative request to the BOP compared to the content of the defendant's motion to a court and the resulting scope of a court's review of the motion including “whether a defendant must specifically mention . . . in a BOP administrative request for compassionate release” each issue the defendant raises with the court before the court can consider those...
To continue reading
Request your trial