United States v. McLean
| Decision Date | 15 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 08-cr-789-7 (RJS),12-cv-1954 (RJS) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LENROY MCLEAN, Defendant. LENROY MCLEAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Before the Court are (1) Petitioner Lenroy McLean's undocketed pro se letter request, dated December 7, 2020 and attached to this Memorandum Opinion and Order, for the Court to “intervene” and provide him with the “Pen register and Trap and Trace” warrants in his criminal case (the “McLean Letter”); (2) McLean's pro se “Motion for Relief Under Rule 60(b)(4)” (Civ Doc. No. 52)[1] (capitalization altered), and request to lift the stay on the Court's consideration of such motion (Civ. Doc. No. 56), which McLean had originally sought while he was in the process of transferring between prison facilities (Civ. Doc. No. 53); (3) McLean's July 9, 2021 request for “a couple subpoena[s]” of undisclosed parties for an undisclosed purpose (Civ. Doc. No. 57) (4) McLean's motion for compassionate release pursuant to the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) (Crim. Doc No. 432); (5) McLean's motion for a court order granting him additional access to the law library at FCI Beaumont, where he is currently housed, and directing the prison to facilitate communication with his court-appointed counsel (Crim. Doc. No. 456); and (6) McLean's motion, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3504, for an order directing the government to admit or deny whether it engaged in unlawful surveillance of him prior to his arrest, along with a corresponding request to seal this motion (Civ. Doc. Nos. 59, 60). Because the Court previously addressed McLean's requests for increased access to the law library and more readily accessible communication with his counsel by directing the government to coordinate with defense counsel and ensure that McLean has appropriate access to legal resources, those requests are DENIED AS MOOT. (Crim. Doc., Minute Entry for Proceeding of July 21, 2021; see also Crim. Doc. No. 459 at 1 ().) Furthermore, because the Court never granted a stay with respect to its consideration of McLean's Rule 60 motion, McLean's request to lift the stay is also DENIED AS MOOT. For the reasons set forth below, McLean's request to be furnished with the warrants in his criminal case, request for subpoenas, Rule 60 motion, motion for compassionate release, motion pursuant to section 3504 for an order requiring the government to admit or deny its use of warrantless surveillance in this case, and request to seal the section 3504 motion are DENIED.
The Court has previously recounted the facts surrounding McLean's conviction in some detail, see McLean v. United States, Nos. 12-cv-1954 (RJS), 08-cr-789 (RJS), 2016 WL 3910664, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2016), and so will reference only those facts necessary to resolve the pending motions.
In 2007 and 2008, McLean “participated in a conspiracy to distribute hundreds of kilograms of cocaine” throughout the New York metropolitan area. Id. at *2. As part of that conspiracy, McLean and a co-conspirator supervised the distribution cells where cocaine was weighed and packaged; the two men also provided security, or “muscle, ” for the leaders of the drug organization. Id.
On November 5, 2008, a grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned an indictment charging McLean and others with participating in a conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A) and 846. (Crim. Doc. No. 40.) On February 18, 2009, the grand jury returned a second superseding indictment that reasserted the narcotics conspiracy and added a second count charging one of McLean's co-conspirators with using and possessing a firearm in furtherance of the drug conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). (Crim. Doc. No. 70.)
On March 16, 2009, trial commenced on the second superseding indictment against McLean and his co-defendant, Milton Samuels; the jury ultimately returned a guilty verdict against both defendants on all counts charged. See McLean, 2016 WL 3910664, at *2. On March 10, 2010, the Court sentenced McLean to 228 months' imprisonment and subsequently ordered that McLean and his co-conspirator forfeit $6, 000, 000 in narcotics proceeds. Id. at *3.
In imposing McLean's sentence, which was substantially below the sentencing Guidelines range of 324 to 405 months (Crim. Doc. No. 198 at 28), the Court cited several factors supporting a lengthy prison term, including McLean's lack of remorse (id. at 45-46); his substantial criminal history at the time of his sentencing, including a prior eleven-year sentence for a violent crime (id. at 42); and the seriousness of the conduct in this case, which involved the importation of over 150 kilograms of cocaine into the United States (id. at 46). Nonetheless, in imposing a below-Guidelines sentence, the Court also cited McLean's family ties and his less-significant role in the conspiracy than that of some of his co-defendants. (Crim. Doc. No. 198 at 42, 46.) McLean appealed his conviction and sentence, and the Second Circuit affirmed. See United States v. Sanchez, 419 Fed.Appx. 27, 33 (2d Cir. 2011).
In the eleven years since the Second Circuit affirmed McLean's conviction and sentence, McLean has mounted a host of challenges to his underlying conviction. On July 13, 2016, the Court denied McLean's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was premised on the ineffective assistance of McLean's trial counsel. McLean, 2016 WL 3910664, at *4-8. In the same opinion, the Court denied McLean's motion to require the government “to specifically delineate all instances of electronic interception [of McLean's and his co-conspirators' communications] pursuant to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings and to expand the record pursuant to Rule 7.” Id. at *8 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The Court concluded that McLean failed to offer “any justification or facts to show good cause for his request, ” so additional discovery was not warranted. Id.
McLean appealed the Court's habeas decision, and the Second Circuit dismissed his appeal because he did “not ‘ma[k]e a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.'” McLean v. United States, No. 16-2702 (ECF No. 47) (2d Cir. Dec. 5, 2016) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)). McLean subsequently brought a successive habeas petition challenging his conviction on the ground that the government allegedly failed to turn over two wiretap affidavits to the defense before trial. (Civ. Doc. No. 25.) The Court dismissed the petition on May 8, 2018 (Civ. Doc. No. 40) and denied McLean's motion for reconsideration on November 5, 2019 (Civ. Doc. No. 47). The Second Circuit dismissed McLean's appeal from that decision on July 8, 2020. (Civ. Doc. No. 51).
McLean next brought a motion to reduce his sentence in light of the United States Sentencing Commission's 2014 reduction in the Guidelines range for drug offenses. (Crim. Doc. No. 386.)
The Court denied that motion on April 24, 2019, explaining that because it had sentenced McLean to a term of imprisonment below even the new Guidelines range, McLean was not eligible for a resentencing. (Crim. Doc. No. 389 at 2.) The Second Circuit dismissed McLean's appeal of the Court's order. (Crim. Doc. No. 405.)
In the summer of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic ravaged the United States, McLean requested that the Court appoint an attorney to assist him in filing a motion for compassionate release pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). (Crim. Doc. No. 425.) The Court granted McLean's motion and, on August 5, 2020, appointed Bobbi C. Sternheim from the Court's Criminal Justice Act panel to represent him (Crim. Doc. No. 429); McLean nonetheless filed a pro se motion for compassionate release less than a week after submitting his request that counsel be appointed. (Crim. Doc. No. 432.)
On February 19, 2021, McLean separately filed a pro se Rule 60 motion for reconsideration of the Court's April 2019 denial of his resentencing motion, contending that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and that the wiretap used to gather evidence against him was faulty for various reasons. (Civ. Doc. No. 52 at 2-4.) He sought to stay the Court's consideration of this motion while he was transferred to a new prison facility (Civ. Doc. No. 53), and then requested that the stay be lifted once his transfer was complete (Civ. Doc No. 56).
At a conference the Court conducted over Zoom on July 21, 2021, McLean indicated that he wished to supplement his pro se motion for compassionate release with a counseled motion for compassionate release, to be filed by Ms. Sternheim. (Crim. Doc., Minute Entry for Proceeding of July 21, 2021.) The motion was fully briefed on October 28, 2021. (Crim. Doc. No. 470.) At present, McLean remains in custody and, according to the BOP website, is expected to be released on March 21, 2025. (Crim. Doc. No. 465 at 4.)
Finally, in a letter filed on March 14, 2022, McLean requests that the Court compel the government to affirm or deny whether it engaged in illegal surveillance of him in connection with this case. (Civ. Doc. No. 59.) McLean also requests that his motion be maintained under seal. (Civ. Doc. No. 60.)
The Court has received several letter requests from McLean primarily seeking documents related to...
To continue reading
Request your trial