United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER AND RULING ON FIRST STEP ACT MOTION FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE OR RESENTENCING
VICTOR
A. BOLDEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Quinne
Powell (“Defendant”) moves for his immediate
release or resentencing under Section 404 of the
recently-enacted First Step Act. See Motion for
Relief Under the Retroactive First Step Act, dated Jan. 4,
2019 (“Def.'s Mot.”), ECF No. 2473; see
also Memorandum in Support of First Step Act Motion,
dated June 28, 2019 (“Def.'s Mem.”), ECF No.
2525. Currently, Mr. Powell is serving five concurrent life
sentences of imprisonment, see Judgment as to Quinne
Powell, dated June 6, 2005 (“Judgment”), ECF No.
2002, and is incarcerated at FCI Hazelton in Bruceton Mills,
West Virginia. See First Step Act of 2018 Addendum
to the Presentence Report, dated May 17, 2019 (“First
Step Supp. PSR”), ECF No. 2502 at 4.
The
United States of America (the “Government”)
opposes Mr. Powell's motion. Government's Opposition
to Def.'s Mot., dated Aug. 9, 2019 (“Gov't
Opp.”), ECF No. 2550.
On
September 10, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the motion.
Minute Entry, dated Sept. 9, 2019, ECF No. 2577.
For the
reasons explained below, the Court (1)
GRANTS the motion for relief under the First
Step Act; (2) ORDERS that Mr. Powell's
sentence of incarceration be REDUCED to
TIME SERVED; (3) RE-IMPOSES
a term of supervised release of FIVE (5)
YEARS. The Bureau of Prisons is authorized to delay
execution of this Order for up to ten (10) days after its
issuance so that the Bureau may make necessary arrangements
related to Mr. Powell's release. The Bureau of Prisons is
directed to proceed as expeditiously as possible so as to
avoid any unnecessary delay.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Because
of his involvement with and leadership of an extensive and
violent drug trafficking enterprise in Bridgeport, CT,
see Gov't Opp. at 1, Mr. Powell has been in
federal custody for about nineteen years.
On
October 16, 2003, a federal grand jury indicted Mr. Powell
and other alleged members of the drug trafficking enterprise
on various conspiracy charges and racketeering acts.
See Seventh Superseding Indictment, dated Oct. 16,
2003, ECF No. 1560.
On June
3, 2005, after a month-long trial in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut before the
Honorable Alan H. Nevas, a jury convicted Mr. Powell 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); 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 841 (b)(1)(A), and 846, Conspiracy to
Possess With Intent to Distribute 50 Grams or More of Cocaine
Base (Counts Three, Four, and Six); 18 U.S.C. §
1512(b)(3), Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering
(Counts Nine and Twelve); and 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1),
Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering (Count Thirteen). Jury
Verdict, dated June 6, 2005, ECF No. 1860.
The
jury found Mr. Powell guilty of various racketeering acts
underlying Count One: several different drug conspiracies,
conspiracy to murder the Trumbull Gardens Terrace (“the
Terrace”) crew members and associates, and obstruction
and witness tampering. Jury Verdict at 1-3. They did not find
him guilty of conspiracy to murder or the attempted murder of
Jermaine Jenkins under Racketeering Act 2, nor they find him
guilty of Racketeering Act 4, which was the murder of Kevin
Guiles and the attempted murders of Brian Matthews or Kendall
Willis. Id. at 2-3. Additionally, the jury agreed
that the defendant was guilty of possessing 50 grams or more
of crack cocaine, but they did not agree on a specific
quantity. Id. at 4 (handwritten “unable to
agree” next to the quantity indicators).
On
December 21, 2005, Judge Nevas sentenced Mr. Powell to the
maximum of life imprisonment on Counts One, Two, Three, Four
and Six; ten years imprisonment on Counts Nine and Twelve;
and twenty years imprisonment on Count Thirteen. See
Judgment. The terms of imprisonment were to all run
concurrently with each other. Id. Judge Nevas also
imposed a fine of $100, 000. Id.
On
January 9, 2006, Mr. Powell appealed his conviction and
sentence. Notice of Appeal, dated Jan. 9, 2006, ECF No. 2006.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction,
but remanded the case back to the District Court in order to
clarify the basis for imposing a fine on Mr. Powell.
United States v. Walker, 262 Fed.Appx. 303, 309 (2d
Cir. 2008) (finding that the District Court erred in imposing
the fine without explaining the reasons for the fine or why
it found that Mr. Powell had the ability to pay the fine).
Subsequently,
on April 10, 2008, Judge Nevas amended the judgment and
eliminated the $100, 000 fine. See Amended Judgment,
dated April 10, 2008, ECF No. 2135.
Over
the years, Mr. Powell has pursued various forms of relief in
the civil and criminal justice systems, all of which were
unsuccessful. See Ruling on Petitioner's Motion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct
Sentence, dated June 2, 2011, Powell v. United
States, No. 9-cv-2141, ECF No. 21; Consolidated Ruling,
dated Aug. 30, 2012, Powell v. United States, No.
9-cv-2141, ECF. No. 36; Order Denying Motion for Intervening
Authority, dated Jan. 6, 2014, Powell v. United
States, No. 9-cv-2141, ECF No. 41; Ruling Denying Motion
to Alter Judgment and Amend Judgment, dated Jan. 8, 2014;
Powell v. United States, No. 9-cv-2141, ECF. No. 42;
Order and Ruling Denying Motion for Reconsideration and
Denying Motion for Hearing, dated Oct. 10, 2014, Powell
v. United States, No. 9-cv-2141, ECF No. 45; Order
Denying Motion for Certificate of Appealability, dated Dec.
29, 2014, Powell v. United States, No. 9-cv-2141,
ECF No. 51; Mandate of USCA, dated May 20, 2015, Powell
v. United States, No. 9-cv-2141, ECF No. 53.
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
(hereafter, 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
January 4, 2019, Mr. Powell moved for his immediate release
or resentencing under Section 404 of the First Step Act.
See Def.'s Mot.
On May
17, 2019, the U.S. Probation Office filed a supplemental
Pre-Sentencing Report, and took the position that Mr. Jones
was not entitled to relief under the First Step Act.
See First Step Supp. PSR.
On June
28, 2019, Mr. Powell filed a memorandum in support of his
motion. Def.'s Mem.
On
August 9, 2019, the Government opposed Mr. Powell's
motion. Gov't Opp.
On
August 23, 2019, Mr. Powell filed a reply in further support
of his motion. Reply Memorandum in Further Support of First
Step Act Motion, dated Aug. 23, 2019 (“Def.'s
Reply”), ECF No. 2557.
During
his period of incarceration, Mr. Powell has participated in
and received certificates indicating the completion of
thirty-eight programs. See Def.'s Reply at 16
(referring to Exhibit 3's Bureau of Prisons Progress
Report and Exhibit 4, which includes the different
certificates). He also has not received a single disciplinary
citation. Def.'s Mem. at 1, 6.
On
September 10, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the motion.
Minute Entry, dated Sept. 9, 2019, ECF No. 2577.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Enacted
in 2018, “Section 404 of the First Step Act authorizes
retroactive application of Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair
Sentencing Act to defendants who were sentenced for crack
cocaine offenses committed prior to August 3, 2010.”
United States v. Jamel Williams (“J.
Williams”), No. 03-CR-795, 2019 WL 3842597, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2019). The Fair Sentencing Act in 2010
“‘reduced [future] statutory penalties for
cocaine base[] offenses' in order to ‘alleviate the
severe sentencing disparity between crack and powder
cocaine.'” Medina, 2019 WL 3769598, at *3
(quoting U.S. v. Sampson, 360 F.Supp.3d 168, 169
(W.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2019)); see also Fair Sentencing
Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 220; 124 Stat. 2372.
“Specifically,
section 404 of the First Step Act permits ‘a court that
imposed a sentence for a covered offense' to
‘impose a reduced sentence as if sections 2 and 3 of
the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-220; 124
Stat. 2372) were in effect at the time the covered offense
was committed.'” United States v. Lawrence
Williams (“L. Williams”), No.
03-CR-1334, 2019 WL 2865226, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2019)
(quoting First Step Act § 404).
“The
First Step Act does not mandate sentence reductions for
defendants” who are eligible for relief. United
States v. Glore, 371 F.Supp.3d 524, 527 (E.D. Wis. Mar.
6, 2019). Instead, “it leaves to the court's
discretion whether to reduce their sentences.”
Id.; see also UnitedStates v.
Rose, 379 F.Supp.3d 223, 233 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2019)
(“Congress clearly intended relief under § 404 of
the First Step Act to be discretionary, as the Act
specifically provides that ‘[n]othing in this ...