United States District Court, D. Connecticut
LEONARD T. JONES, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
RULING ON PETITION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT
A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
T. Jones (“Petitioner”), currently incarcerated
at the Federal Correctional Institution, Coleman, and
proceeding pro se, moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his
sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence, ECF No. 1 (“Mot.”).
In response, the United States (or “Government”)
filed a response to Mr. Jones's motion. Government's
Response to Petitioner's § 2255 Motion to Vacate,
Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, ECF No. 5 (“Gov't.
Mem. in Opp'n.”).
following reasons, the Court DENIES Mr.
Jones' motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Indictment and Jury Verdict
December 20, 2001, the Government charged Leonard Jones with
multiple federal crimes in connection with a drug trafficking
enterprise (“Jones Organization”). United
States v. Jones, 99-cr-264 (PCD), Fifth Superseding
Indictment, ECF No. 813. At trial, the Government's
evidence showed that the Jones Organization was “a
relatively structured RICO enterprise, conducted over a
substantial period of time.” United States v.
Jones, 482 F.3d 60, 70 (2d Cir. 2006). After a
seven-week trial, in front of U.S. District Judge Peter
Dorsey, a jury found Leonard Jones, and a number of other
criminal defendants, guilty of multiple felonies. United
States v. Jones, 296 Fed.Appx. 179, 180 (2d Cir. 2008)
September 3, 2003, Judge Dorsey sentenced Mr. Jones sentenced
to a term of life imprisonment for Racketeering in Corrupt
Organizations (“RICO”) under 18 U.S.C. §
1962(c), RICO Conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d),
Conspiracy to Distribute and Distribution of More than 1, 000
Grams of Heroin and 50 Grams of Cocaine under 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and Conspiracy to Murder
under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5). Id.; United
States v. Jones, 99-cr-264 (PCD), Judgment as to Leonard
Troy Jones, ECF No. 1493.
Direct Appeal and Subsequent Remand
appeal to the Second Circuit, Mr. Jones argued that his
sentence was “imposed pursuant to a mandatory
application of the Sentencing Guidelines and therefore in
violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005).” Jones, 296 Fed.Appx. at 184. The
Second Circuit, relying on United States v. Crosby,
397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005), remanded Jones's case
“for consideration by the District Court of whether
[he] should be resentenced in light of
August 4, 2009, Mr. Jones moved for re-sentencing based on
his advanced age and an alleged sentencing disparity among
the other defendants in the case. United States v.
Jones, 99-cr-264 (PCD), Memorandum in Support of
Resentencing, ECF No. 2308.
October 5, 2009, Judge Dorsey held that there was “no
reasonable basis for imposing a non-trivial reduced sentence
for which defendant has moved.” Id.,
United States v. Jones, No. 99-cr-706, Memorandum of
Decision, ECF No. 2315. Accordingly, while Judge Dorsey
ultimately granted the motion for reconsideration, Mr.
Jones's sentence was not reduced. Id.
Section 2255 Petition
5, 2016, Mr. Jones moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his
sentence and argued that his sentence violated his Sixth
Amendment rights under Booker and Crosby.
Mot., at 5.
20, 2016, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding
Mr. Jones's ...