Wright v. United States
| Decision Date | 11 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Action No. 4:95-cr-39, Criminal Action No. 4:95-cr-44 |
| Citation | 393 F.Supp.3d 432 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | Marty Lorenzo WRIGHT, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent. |
Keith Loren Kimball, Esq., Rodolfo Cejas, II, Assistant Federal Defender, Counsel for Petitioner.
Eric M. Hurt, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Counsel for Respondent.
On October 12, 1984, Congress passed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-47, 98 Stat. 1976 ("CCCA"), which included the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 ("SRA"). Through this, the legislature created the United States Sentencing Commission, which in turn established the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. See United States Sentencing Guidelines, § 1A1.1. As part of this new federal sentencing scheme, section 3553(b)(1) of Title 18 of the United States Code made the guideline ranges mandatory.
On January 12, 2005, the United States Supreme Court held that these mandatory guideline sentences were unconstitutional in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 244–45, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Since then, federal courts have considered the guideline ranges as advisory and are free to impose sentences that are within the statutory minimums and maximums. However, every single United States Court of Appeals has held that the Booker decision is not retroactive for purposes of collateral attacks. In re Fashina , 486 F.3d 1300, 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (collecting cases); Cirilo-Munoz v. United States , 404 F.3d 527, 533 (1st Cir. 2005) ; Guzman v. United States , 404 F.3d 139, 142 (2d Cir. 2005) ; Lloyd v. United States , 407 F.3d 608, 610 (3d Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Morris , 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Gentry , 432 F.3d 600, 604 (5th Cir. 2005) ; Humphress v. United States , 398 F.3d 855, 860 (6th Cir. 2005) ; McReynolds v. United States , 397 F.3d 479, 481 (7th Cir. 2005) ; Never Misses A Shot v. United States , 413 F.3d 781, 783–84 (8th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Cruz , 423 F.3d 1119, 1120–21 (9th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Bellamy , 411 F.3d 1182, 1186–87 (10th Cir. 2005) ; Varela v. United States , 400 F.3d 864, 868 (11th Cir. 2005).
The undercutting of Booker's core remedial measure has created a lost generation, a group caught in a national purgatory, where individual citizens pay penance for the constitutional errors of the sovereign. For twenty years of this nation's history, at the height of what has been called the "crack epidemic," which resulted in unconstitutionally high guideline ranges, Kimbrough v. United States , 552 U.S. 85, 108-10, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) (), and which was executed in ways that have been described as racially biased, United States v. Bannister , 786 F. Supp. 2d 617, 648 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ( ), the federal system imposed unconstitutionally constructed sentences. After Booker , although courts now have the discretion to depart from the Guidelines as they see fit, they could not review the sentences of this twenty-year period, leaving those individuals to serve their sentences based on an unconstitutional framework. The Petitioner in this case, Marty Lorenzo Wright ("Petitioner Wright"), is but one of the many members of this lost generation.
On December 21, 2018, Congress passed the Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person Act, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018) ("FIRST STEP Act"), which authorizes courts to "impose a reduced sentence for anyone" who (1) was convicted of a statute, for which the penalties were modified by Sections 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010) ("FSA"); (2) the offense was committed before August 3, 2010; and (3) did not already receive a reduction under the FSA or the FIRST STEP Act. See FIRST STEP Act, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. With this newest legislation, Congress has indeed taken the first step to begin correcting the wrongs done to the lost generation of 1984 to 2005.
Before the Court is Petitioner Wright's pro se letter motion seeking relief under the writs of coram nobis or audita querela. ECF No. 709.1 The Court construed this Motion as seeking relief under the FIRST STEP Act. ECF No. 710. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART . It is DENIED , insofar as Petitioner Wright's sentence for case number 4:95-cr-44 is not affected by the FIRST STEP Act. However, his motion is GRANTED insofar as case number 4:95-cr-39 is indeed affected, and the Court now imposes a total sentence of 360 months as follows: 240 months on Counts 1, 2, 9, 11, 14, and 36; 120 months on Counts 42 and 50, to be served concurrently; and 60 months each on Counts 43 and 51, to be served consecutively.
From 1985 to August 31, 1995, Petitioner Wright was involved in a family-run crack cocaine and marijuana distribution conspiracy in Virginia. ECF No. 717 at 6. On August 31, 1995, at the age of twenty-six, Petitioner Wright was indicted on multiple counts as indicated below:
ECF No. 4. Less than a month later, on September 27, 1995, Petitioner Wright was separately indicted on four more charges:
4:95-cr-44, ECF No. 1. Petitioner Wright decided to go to trial on all fourteen counts, which commenced on February 24, 1997. 4:95-cr-39, ECF No. 720 at 3. On March 5, 1997, the jury found Petitioner Wright guilty on all counts for 4:95-cr-39 and guilty on Counts 3 and 4 for 4:95-cr-44. Id.
On June 20, 1997, the Court sentenced Petitioner Wright, as required under the then-mandatory sentencing guidelines, to Life imprisonment on Counts 1, 2, 11, and 14; 240 months on Counts 9 and 36; and 120 months on Counts 42 and 50, all to be served concurrently. ECF No. 404. Furthermore, he was sentenced to 60 months on Count 43 and 240 months on Count 51, both to be served consecutive with all other counts and each other. Id. Finally, in 4:95-cr-44, the Court sentenced Petitioner Wright to 120 months on both Count 3 and Count 4, to be served concurrently with all other charges, except Counts 43 and 51. 4:95-cr-44, ECF No. 173. In total, Petitioner Wright was sentenced to Life imprisonment plus a mandatory consecutive term of 300 months for the gun charges in Counts 43 and 51.2 On July 15, 2009, the Court reduced Petitioner Wright's Life sentence to 360 months pursuant to Petitioner Wright's § 3582 Motion under revised guideline ranges, while maintaining the full 300 consecutive term for Counts 43 and 51. 4:95-cr-39, ECF No. 606. Today, Petitioner Wright's current sentence is for 660 months, or fifty-five years. Petitioner Wright has served twenty-three years of this sentence. ECF No. 720 at 2.
During his time in prison, Petitioner Wright has not only improved himself but those around him. In his twenty-three years of imprisonment, Petitioner Wright has only had five minor infractions, and has had no infractions in nearly sixteen years. ECF No. 717 at 7-8. Petitioner Wright created and leads a faith-based re-entry program for other inmates in his prison. ECF No. 708 at 2. He also serves as a Suicide Watch Companion at the prison and. Id.
On January 4, 2019, Petitioner Wright filed his Motion with the Court. ECF No. 709. On January 30, 2019, the Court ordered Petitioner Wright be appointed counsel and ordered briefing on the matter. ECF No. 710. On January 31, 2019, the Court received a copy of Petitioner Wright's original presentencing report. ECF No. 711. On March 15, 2019, the Government responded in opposition to his motion. ECF No. 717. On April 26, 2019, Petitioner Wright's counsel filed a reply to the Government's opposition. ECF No. 720.
When a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment, that is considered a final judgment on the matter. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b). It is well established that "[t]he law closely guards the finality of criminal sentences against judicial ‘change of heart.’ " United States v. Goodwyn , 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Layman , 116 F.3d 105, 109 (4th Cir. 1997) ). Under statutory law, a "court may not modify a term of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Hardnett, Case No. 3:03cr212
...amounts in the guilty plea and the indictment, not the offense conduct as noted in the presentence report"); Wright v. United States , 393 F.Supp.3d 432, 442 (E.D. Va. 2019) ("the drug quantity attributable to the defendant must be based on the statutory amounts alleged in the indictment, n......
-
United States v. King
...to require a court to reduce any sentence pursuant to this section." Pub. L. No. 115-391, §§ 404(b) & (c); Wright v. United States, 393 F. Supp. 3d 432, 439 (E.D. Va. 2019) (stating that a court has broad discretion under the terms of the Act); United States v. Glore, 371 F. Supp. 3d 524, 5......
-
United States v. Opher
...First Step context with respect to whether the statutory penalties have been modified."); Wright v. United States , 393 F.Supp.3d 432, 440, No. 95-39, 2019 WL 3046096, at *5 (E.D. Va. July 11, 2019) ("Therefore, the Court finds that because Congress decided to apply the FSA retroactively th......
-
United States v. Mack, Crim. No. 00-323-01 (KSH)
...First Step context with respect to whether the statutory penalties have been modified."); Wright v. United States , 393 F.Supp.3d 432, 440, No. 95-39, 2019 WL 3046096, at *5 (E.D. Va. July 11, 2019) z("Therefore, the Court finds that because Congress decided to apply the FSA retroactively t......