United States v. Johnson

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARIO K. JOHNSON

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Date published: Jun 30, 2014

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 07-17-SDD (M.D. La. Jun. 30, 2014)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 07-17-SDD

06-30-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MARIO K. JOHNSON

SHELLY D. DICK

RULING

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Run Sentence Concurrent ¹ fild by the Defendant, Mario K. Johnson. The United States opposes the motion.²

1 Rec. Doc. No. 55.

2 Rec. Doc. No. 59.

On May 29, 2007, the Defendant pled guilty to distribution of five grams or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). On October 8, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 210 months, which was ordered by the Court to run consecutively to the Defendant's imprisonment under any previous state or federal sentence. This sentence was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit on June 8, 2009.³

3 U.S. v. Johnson, 332 F. App'x 946, 2009 WL 1582540 (5^th Cir. 6/8/09).

The Defendant recognizes that "this Court does not have to grant the instant motion,"⁴ but offers the Court evidence of his attendance and/or completion in various rehabilitative and vocational programs, mostly pertaining to substance abuse. The Defendant also contends that he "is no longer the young 'thug' of a man who was recklessly and emphatically putting his personal financial gains ahead of an ordered society ...; he has matured and recognizes that he was wrong - on multiple counts - and is deserving of punitive as well as corrective measures imposed against him."⁵

4 Rec. Doc. No. 55, p. 2, ¶ IX.

5 Id. at p. 3, ¶ X.

While the Court commends the Defendant's efforts to better himself, the Court does not find grounds to grant the sought relief. The record in this case clearly shows that the Court's decision to run Defendant's sentence consecutive to other sentences was allowed by the law and warranted by the facts of the case. Moreover, as the United States points out, courts have held that a defendant's subsequent good behavior after the commission of his crimes does not obviate the need for a consecutive sentence.⁶ The Court finds that the sentence imposed adequately reflects the seriousness of the Defendant's crimes in this matter.

6 Rec. Doc. No. 59, p. 3, citing U.S. v. Matera, 489 F.3d 115, 124 (2d Cir. 2007)("The district court found that despite Matera's claim of good conduct while in prison, a consecutive sentence best reflected the seriousness of his crime.").

Therefore, the Motion to Run Sentence Concurrent ⁷ is DENIED.

7 Rec. Doc. No. 55.
--------

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 30 day of June, 2014.

__________

SHELLY D. DICK, DISTRICT JUDGE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA