United States v. Smith

Citation460 F.Supp.3d 783
Decision Date14 May 2020
Docket NumberCase No. 4:95-cr-00019-LPR-4
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. Earnes Lee SMITH, Defendant
CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas

460 F.Supp.3d 783

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff
v.
Earnes Lee SMITH, Defendant

Case No. 4:95-cr-00019-LPR-4

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Central Division.

Signed May 14, 2020


460 F.Supp.3d 786

AMENDED ORDER

LEE P. RUDOFSKY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On April 7, 2020, Defendant Earnes Lee Smith filed a Motion for Immediate Release Pursuant to the Provisions of Compassionate Release.1 As explained below, Mr. Smith's Motion is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Background and Procedural History.

In early 1992, Earnes Lee Smith and his criminal associates became the subjects of an "ongoing investigation of drug trafficking in the Central Arkansas area by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Arkansas State Police (ASP), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)."2 The investigation revealed that, on March 27, 1992, Mr. Smith's son murdered Daryl Cooperwood in a vacant lot in Beebe, Arkansas.3 Mr. Smith had contacted his son about the potential murder after Mr. Smith discovered that there was a $5,000 bounty for Mr. Cooperwood's death. Mr. Smith's son traveled to Arkansas, killed Mr. Cooperwood, and split the $5,000 reward with his father. A jury convicted Mr. Smith of "Aiding and Abetting Murder for Hire."4 On August 29, 1996, Mr. Smith was sentenced to life in prison for his role in the murder.5 He was 60 years old.

Fast forward about 25 years. On June 11, 2018, Mr. Smith filed a request for compassionate release with the warden of his correctional facility.6 According to Mr. Smith, his 2018 request was "premised

460 F.Supp.3d 787

upon extraordinary and compelling medical issues, which are age related, are incurable, and will only continue to inure to his deficit."7 His medical issues at that time included diabetes, age-related cataracts, hearing loss, hypertension, edentulism, hernia, pyelonephritis, hypertrophy of the prostate with urinary obstruction, peripheral vascular disease, and a past history of colon cancer.8 The warden denied Mr. Smith's request. On October 16, 2018, Mr. Smith appealed the denial with the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") Central Office.9 On December 4, 2018, his appeal was denied.10

On January 22, 2019, Mr. Smith filed a pro se Motion to Appoint Counsel "for the purpose of perfecting and filing a Motion for Compassionate Release under 18 U.S.C. § (c)(1)(A)(i) as allowed by the First Step Act."11 The Court denied Mr. Smith's Motion because he "presented no evidence to support his claims of ‘extraordinary and compelling health issues.’ "12 In other words, Mr. Smith's Motion to Appoint Counsel was denied because the Court concluded that Mr. Smith's underlying request for release lacked merit. Understandably, in light of this ruling, Mr. Smith did not file a pro se motion for compassionate release with the Court. Why would he? The Court had already addressed and rejected the would-be merits of his claim.

Instead, several months later, in the Spring of 2019, Mr. Smith filed a new request for compassionate release with the warden of his facility. This request was dated March 14, 2019, and stamped received on April 5, 2019.13 Mr. Smith's 2019 request referenced and relied on the medical records that were available to the warden "through Medical."14 At that time, Mr. Smith's medical records included at least four new medical issues that were not previously considered in his 2018 request.15 His new diagnoses included astigmatism, presbyopia, joint pain, and joint disorder.16 On April 25, 2019, the warden denied Mr. Smith's new request. The warden's denial letter informed Mr. Smith that if he was "dissatisfied with this response," he could "file an appeal pursuant to Program Statement 1330.18, Administrative Remedy Program,

460 F.Supp.3d 788

within 20 calendar days of the date of this response."17 Mr. Smith did not appeal the warden's ruling or otherwise act on the warden's denial.

Nearly a year later, in February of 2020, the COVID-19 crisis began in earnest in the United States. On April 7, 2020, Mr. Smith filed the instant Motion for Compassionate Release with the Court.18 His Motion is based on his underlying medical conditions and the consequent elevated risk of contracting COVID-19, of dying from COVID-19, or of COVID-19 exacerbating his current medical conditions.19 On April 15, 2020, the United States responded to the Motion.20 Among other things, the United States argues that Mr. Smith "has presented a new motion for compassionate release based on concerns about the coronavirus," and that Mr. Smith must first exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to this coronavirus-related request.21

In reply, Mr. Smith strongly disagrees with the United States' analysis.22 Notwithstanding this position, on April 22, 2020, Mr. Smith filed a third request for compassionate release with the warden of his facility.23 Mr. Smith's third request is based on his medical conditions, age, and COVID-19.24 This is the only request that includes COVID-19 as an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. As far as the Court knows, the warden has not yet issued a determination regarding Mr. Smith's most recent request.

II. Is 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) a Jurisdictional Rule or a Claim-Processing Rule?

The United States contends that the Court does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Smith's Motion because Mr. Smith failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).25 The Court must resolve challenges to its jurisdiction before considering anything having to do with the merits of Mr. Smith's request.26 To do this, the Court must determine whether § 3582(c)(1)(A) is a jurisdictional rule or a mandatory claim-processing rule.

Non-lawyers might reasonably ask why, in the middle of the most serious health crisis the country has faced in a century, the Court should focus on technical legal arguments about jurisdiction? Shouldn't the Court just be concerned about whether Mr. Smith deserves to get out of jail to avoid the (potentially fatal) risks associated with COVID-19? The answer lies in the fact that jurisdiction is not just some legal technicality. It is one of the cornerstones of our democratic republic. It is one of the most important ways that our Constitution ensures that unelected judges—who are not directly accountable to the people—do not usurp the role of the elected, and thus far more accountable,

460 F.Supp.3d 789

branches of government. With respect to the judicial branch, the requirement that judges not act unless they have jurisdiction (meaning authority and power), is the principal manifestation of the horizontal separation of powers that our founders knew was critical to the survival of our form of government.27

The existence of a crisis does not make the question of jurisdiction any less fundamental. In fact, just the opposite. It is in times of crisis that the temptation for government officials to exceed their authority or to turn a blind eye to constitutional limitations is at its zenith.28 The temptation is often born out of a desire to do what one thinks is good and helpful to others.29 But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.30 It is times like these when it is most important for a court to take a breath and ensure it is only acting where it has the constitutional authority to do so. The protections of the Constitution—including structural protections—are most important in times where they are the most inconvenient. The Court is exceedingly sympathetic to the health concerns that COVID-19 poses to prisoners. But as horrific as COVID-19 may be, and as susceptible as prisoners may be to it, the Court is duty-bound to only exercise the specific authority that has been entrusted to it.

" ‘Only Congress may determine our subject-matter jurisdiction,’ and we have ‘no authority to create equitable exceptions to [its] jurisdictional requirements.’ "31 As a general matter, "[t]he district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States."32 But some courts have held that this general grant of jurisdiction does not permit district courts "to set aside a criminal judgment that contains a term of imprisonment at any time and for any reason."33 Instead, district

460 F.Supp.3d 790

courts are only empowered to set aside a term of imprisonment in the limited situations enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).34

In U.S. v. Auman , the Eighth Circuit considered, among other things, whether the district court in that case had jurisdiction to modify a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b) and § 3582(c)(2). The Eighth Circuit held that § 3582(b) "does not grant jurisdiction to a district court to do anything, let alone correct an illegal sentence."35 But when a defendant meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district court is endowed with "limited jurisdiction" to modify a sentence.36 Because the defendant in Auman did not meet § 3582(c)(2)'s requirements, the Eighth Circuit concluded that neither it nor the district court had jurisdiction to entertain the defendant's challenges. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • White v. Dep't of Justice
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois
    • May 19, 2020
  • United States v. Prieto
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • December 14, 2022
    ...see, e.g., United States v. Blankenship, No. CR 7:19-10-KKC, 2020 WL 6111959, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 16, 2020); United States v. Smith, 460 F.Supp.3d 783, 797 (E.D. Ark. 2020); United States v. Haney, 454 F.Supp.3d 316, 322 (S.D.N.Y., 2020). In Alam, however, the Sixth Circuit construes the s......
  • United States v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • August 31, 2020
    ...only if the warden fails to rule on the inmate's request within 30 days ("the minority view"), see, e.g., United States v. Smith, 460 F. Supp. 3d 783, 793–97 (E.D. Ark. May 14, 2020) ; United States v. Weidenhamer, No. CR-16-01072-001-PHX-ROS, 2019 WL 6050264, at *2-4 (D. Ariz. Nov. 8, 2019......
  • United States v. Torres, CASE NO. 1:15-CR-0288-AWI-SKO-4
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • May 3, 2021
    ...*2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2021) (Ishii, J.); United States v. Greenlove, 469 F. Supp. 3d 341, 349 (M.D. Pa. 2020); United States v. Smith, 460 F. Supp. 3d 783, 792 (E.D. Ark. 2020). "The defendant bears the initial burden to put forward evidence that establishes an entitlement to a sentence red......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT