United States v. Morris

• Decision Date: 26 August 2022
• Docket Number: 3:99-cr-264-17 (VAB)
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LESLIE MORRIS, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LESLIE MORRIS, Defendant.

No. 3:99-cr-264-17 (VAB)

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

August 26, 2022

RULING AND ORDER ON EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REDUCTION IN SENTENCE UNDER THE FIRST STEP ACT

VICTOR A. BOLDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Leslie Morris (“Defendant”) moves for reduction of sentence under Section 603 of the First Step Act. See Emergency Mot. for Reduction in Sentence Under the First Step Act, ECF No. 2737 (Sept. 14, 2021) (“Def.'s Mot.”); see also Mem. in Support of Mot. for Reduction in Sentence Under the First Step Act, ECF No. 2738 (Sept. 14, 2021) (“Def.'s Mem.”). Currently, Mr. Morris is serving four concurrent life sentences of imprisonment, see J ECF No. 1502 (Sept. 15, 2003) (“Judgment”), and is incarcerated at Beaumont Federal Correctional Complex, in Beaumont, Texas. See Government's Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Sentence Reduction Under the First Step Act at 4, ECF No. 2744 (Oct. 15, 2021) (“Gov't Opp'n”).

The United States of America (the “Government”) opposes Mr. Morris's motion. Gov't Opp'n.

On December 22, 2021, the Court held a hearing on the motion. Min. Entry, ECF No. 2765 (Dec. 22, 2021).

For the reasons explained below, the Court (1) GRANTS the motion for sentence reduction under the First Step Act; (2) ORDERS that Mr. Morris's sentence of incarceration be REDUCED to 360 months; and (3) RE-IMPOSES a term of supervised release of FIVE (5) YEARS.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Because of his involvement with an extensive and violent drug trafficking enterprise in Bridgeport, Connecticut, see Gov't Opp'n. at 1-2, Mr. Morris has been in federal custody for about twenty-three years, see Def.'s Mem. at 53 n.43 (noting that “[M]r. Morris was arrested for Kenneth Porter's murder by state authorities over 22 years ago, on May 19, 1999”).

On December 20, 2001, a federal grand jury indicted Mr. Morris and other alleged members of the drug trafficking enterprise on various conspiracy charges, violent crimes, and drug charges. See Fifth Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 813 (Dec. 20, 2001).

On November 20, 2002, a hung jury returned no charge against Mr. Morris and his codefendants. See Trial Tr., ECF No. 1278 (Dec. 18, 2002).

On April 24, 2003, after a seven-week trial in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut before the Honorable Peter C. Dorsey, a jury convicted Mr. Morris of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), Racketeering in Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) (Count One); 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), RICO Conspiracy (Count Two); 18 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and Distribution of Narcotics (Count Five); 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1), Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering (Count Thirteen); 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) and (2), Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering Act (“VICAR”): Murder of Kenneth Porter (Count Fourteen); and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) and (2), Use of Firearm in Relation to Murder of Kenneth Porter (Count Fifteen). Verdict Form, ECF No. 1408 (Apr. 24, 2003).

On May 2, 2003, Mr. Morris moved for judgment of acquittal. Mot. by Leslie Morris for J. of Acquittal, ECF No. 1412 (May 2, 2003). Judge Dorsey denied this motion on September 3, 2003. Ruling, ECF No. 1485 (Sept. 3, 2003).

On September 15, 2003, Judge Dorsey sentenced Mr. Morris to life imprisonment terms on Counts One, Two, Five, and Fourteen; ten years imprisonment on Count Thirteen; and five years imprisonment on Count Fifteen. See Judgment. The terms of imprisonment were to all run concurrently with each other, except the five-year term, which was to run consecutive with the other terms. Id. Judge Dorsey also ordered a three-year term of supervised release on Count Thirteen and a five-year term of supervised release on Count Fifteen, to run concurrently. Id.

On September 18, 2003, Mr. Morris appealed his conviction. Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 1506 (Sept. 18, 2003). On October 20, 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the district court. See United States v. Jones, 296 Fed.Appx. 179, 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (summary order) (“All defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence underlying their convictions, but we see no merit in any of their challenges.”).

On September 28, 2009, Mr. Morris filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Mot. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody, Morris v. United States, 3:09-CV-1548 (PCD), ECF No. 2 (Sept. 28, 2009). On March 22, 2010, the Government opposed Mr. Morris's writ. Government's Resp. to Petitioner's Mot. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Morris v. United States, 3:09-CV-1548 (PCD), ECF No. 9 (Mar. 22, 20210). On May 16, 2011, Judge Dorsey denied Mr. Morris's petition. Ruling on Petition for Habeas Corpus, Morris v. United States, 3:09-CV-1548 (PCD), ECF No. 15 (May 16, 2011).

On June 9, 2011, Mr. Morris appealed Judge Dorsey's denial of his habeas petition. See Notice of Appeal, Morris v. United States, 3:09-CV-1548 (PCD), ECF No. 17 (June 9, 2011). On June 19, 2013, the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Dorsey's denial and denied Mr. Morris's petition for rehearing. See Morris v. United States, 523 Fed.Appx. 7, 9 (Mem.), No. 11-2369 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order) (affirming the lower court's decision).

On December 21, 2018, Congress passed, and the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, signed into law, the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (hereinafter, the “First Step Act”), which “made retroactive some provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act [of 2010, Pub. L. 111-220; 124 Stat. 2372].” United States v. Bobby Medina, No. 3:05-cr-58, 2019 WL 3769598, at *2 (D. Conn. July 17, 2019).

On October 15, 2020, Mr. Morris moved in the Second Circuit for an order authorizing this Court to consider a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion on Eight Amendment grounds. The Second Circuit granted this motion on November 9, 2020. Mandate, ECF No. 2705 (Nov. 9, 2020). Mr. Morris also requested leave to file a claim under the First Step Act, which the Second Circuit denied as unnecessary, since such motions could be filed with this Court in the first instance, without leave. Id.

On September 14, 2021, Mr. Morris moved for a sentence reduction pursuant to Section 603 of the First Step Act. Def.'s Mot.

On October 15, 2021, the Government filed an opposition to Mr. Morris's motion for a sentence reduction. Gov't Opp'n.

On October 29, 2021, Mr. Morris filed a reply in support of his First Step Act motion. Reply in Supp. of First Step Act Mot., ECF No. 2751 (Oct. 29, 2021) (“Reply”).

On November 15, 2021, the Government filed a supplemental opposition to Mr. Morris's motion for a sentence reduction. Government's Suppl. Opposition to Def.'s Mot. for a Sentence Reduction Under the First Step Act, ECF No. 2758 (Nov. 15, 2021) (“Gov't Suppl. Opp'n”).

On December 22, 2021, the Court held a motion hearing. Min. Entry, ECF No. 2765 (Dec. 22, 2021).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court may modify a term of imprisonment on compassionate release grounds in two circumstances: (1) “upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons [(“BOP”)];” or (2) “upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier ....” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also United States v. Gotti, 433 F.Supp.3d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (“In December 2018, as part of the First Step Act, Congress worked a change to th[e] rule of long standing” that a court could only modify a sentence upon motion from the Bureau of Prisons. “A court may now consider a motion for compassionate release made by a defendant who has exhausted his administrative remedies by petitioning the Director of the BOP to make such a motion, assuming the Director fails to act on the inmate's request within thirty days.”).

A court may only grant such a modification if it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” release. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In determining whether to grant a motion to modify a sentence, a court must also consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

A district court may, after considering the factors set forth in § 3553(a) “such as deterrence, public safety, rehabilitation, proportionality, and consistency,” United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 35 (2d Cir. 1997), “‘terminate a term of supervised release . . . at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release,' so long as ‘it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant . . . and the interest of justice,” United States v. Key, 602 F.3d 492, 494 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1)). “The district court is not required to make specific findings of fact with respect to each § 3553(a) factor; instead, ‘a statement that the district court has considered the statutory factors is sufficient.'” United States v. Shellef, No. 03-CR-0723 (JFB), 2018 WL 3199249, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2018) (quoting United States v. Gammarano, 321 F.3d 311, 315-16 (2d Cir. 2003)).

“Before modifying the conditions of probation or supervised release the court must hold a hearing, at which the person has the right to counsel and an opportunity to make a statement and present any information in mitigation.” Fed. R. Crim P. 32.1(c)(1). A hearing is not required, however, “if . . . (B) the relief sought is favorable to the person and does not extend the term of probation or of...