Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 93-491
01-03-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MAXON HARVEY MORGAN, ET AL.
SECTION I
ORDER & REASONS
LANCE M. AFRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is pro se defendant Maxon Harvey Morgan's (“Morgan”) motion for a reduction in sentence “pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and 782 Drug Minus Two Amendment.” The United States opposes the motion. For the following reasons, Morgan's motion is denied.
R. Doc. No. 579, at 1.
R. Doc. No. 581.
I.
The Court is familiar with the facts of Morgan's case, which are set forth more fully in prior orders. In 1994, Morgan was convicted and sentenced to 432 months imprisonment for conspiracy to import 500 kilograms or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963. United States v. Morgan, 866 F.3d 674, 675 (5th Cir. 2017). Morgan's projected release date is April 22, 2023. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has a detainer pending against Morgan to determine whether he is subject to deportation; this detainer is effective until June 21, 2025.
See, e.g., R. Doc. Nos. 543 & 558.
Inmate Locator, Federal Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited January 3, 2022).
R. Doc. No. 540-2, at 1.
Morgan's instant motion seeks a sentence reduction of 16 months “in light of the 782 Amendment, ” on the basis that Morgan's pre-sentence investigation report (“PSI”) “still reflects that [Morgan] is sentence[d] under level 40 instead of level 38 as the Fifth Circuit” previously declared. The United States opposes the motion based on the Fifth Circuit's determination that Morgan is “‘ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because it had no effect on his base-offense level.'”
R. Doc. No. 579, at 2.
R. Doc. No. 581, at 2 (quoting Morgan, 866 F.3d at 676).
II.
“The law of the case doctrine ‘applies to a single proceeding, and operates to foreclose re-examination of decided issues either on remand or on a subsequent appeal.'” United States v. Dillon, No. 03-252, 2019 WL 3779513, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 12, 2019) (Feldman, J.) (quoting United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 714 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted)). This discretionary doctrine “is essential to the orderly administration of justice.” United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir. 2002). “Without this doctrine, cases would end only when obstinate litigants tire of re-asserting the same arguments over and over again[, ] in the hopes of obtaining a more sympathetic panel[.]” Id. (citation omitted). Consistent with that doctrine's discretionary nature, there are three exceptions to its application: “(1) The evidence at a subsequent trial is substantially different; (2) there has been an intervening change of law by a controlling authority; and (3) the earlier decision is clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Id. (citation omitted).
This Court has jurisdiction to consider Morgan's motion. Calton, 900 F.3d at 711 (holding that district courts have jurisdiction to consider successive § 3582(c)(2) motions).
III.
This Court previously decided that Morgan is “ineligible for a section 3582 sentencing reduction, ” because “Amendment 782 results in no change in [Morgan's] base offense level.” Morgan appealed that decision, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed: “Morgan was responsible for more than 500 kilograms of cocaine. After Amendment 505, his base-offense level was 38. Amendment 782 left his base-offense at 38. It therefore did ‘not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range.'” Morgan, 866 F.3d at 677 (quoting United States v. Bowman, 632 F.3d 906, 910 (5th Cir. 2011)).
R. Doc. No. 506. The Honorable Kurt D. Engelhardt entered this prior order when he presided over Morgan's case as a United States District Judge. Morgan's case has since been re-allotted to this Court.
The Fifth Circuit has squarely addressed the issue that Morgan raises here. Id. Morgan provides no suggestion of an intervening change of law by a controlling authority or that the Fifth Circuit's decision was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice. Morgan is not eligible for a sentencing reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782.
R. Doc. No. 579, at 1-2. Likewise, no subsequent trial has been held.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Morgan's motion for a reduction in sentence is DENIED.