Opinion
5:18-CR-519-D 5:20-CV-342-D
06-15-2021
DOMINIQUE WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent.
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On June 26, 2020, Dominique Williams ("Williams" or "defendant") moved under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his 72-month sentence [D.E. 47]. On July 8, 2020, Williams filed a corrected motion [D.E. 50]. On July 20, 2020, Williams moved pro se for compassionate release under the First Step Act ("First Step Act"), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5238-41 (2018) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 3582) [D.E. 51]. On October 29, 2020, the government moved to dismiss Williams's 2255 motion [D.E. 60] and filed a memorandum in support [D.E. 61]. On February 9, 2021, Williams moved again for compassionate release [D.E. 69]. As explained below, the court grants the government's motion to dismiss, dismisses Williams's section 2255 motion, and denies Williams's motion for compassionate release.
I.
On March 12, 2019, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Williams pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a quantity of heroin (count two) and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime (count three). See [D.E. 1, 30, 32]. On July 25, 2019, the court held a sentencing hearing and adopted the facts set forth in the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR"). See [D.E. 44-46]. The court calculated Williams's total offense level to be 10, his criminal history category to be HI, and his advisory guideline range to be 10 to 16 months' imprisonment on count two and 60 months' imprisonment on count three. See [D.E. 46] 1. After thoroughly considering all relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court sentenced Williams to 12 months' imprisonment on count two and 60 months' consecutive imprisonment on count three, for a total sentence of 72 months' imprisonment. See [D.E. 45] 2. Williams did not appeal.
In Williams's section 2255 motion, Williams argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because (1) counsel failed to object to the drug weight used to calculate the base offense level for bis advisory guideline range; and (2) counsel encouraged him to sign the plea agreement. See [D.E. 47] 4-5, 13-15; [D.E. 50] 4-5, 13-14.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" tests a complaint's legal and factual sufficiency. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal. 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly. 550 U.S. 544, 555-63, 570 (2007); Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals. 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010), affd. 566 U.S. 30 (2012); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir. 2008); accord Erickson v. Pardus. 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam). In considering a motion to dismiss, a court need not accept a complaint's legal conclusions. See, e.g.. Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 678. Similarly, a court "need not accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 302 (quotation omitted); see Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 677-79. Moreover, a court may take judicial notice of public records without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g.. Fed.R.Evid. 201(d); Tellabs. Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rts.. Ltd.. 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); Philips v. Pitt Cntv. Mem'l Hosp.. 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). In reviewing a section 2255 motion, the court is not limited to the motion itself. The court may consider "the files and records of the case." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); see United States v. McGill. 11 F.3d 223, 225 (1st Cir. 1993). Likewise, a court may rely on its own familiarity with the case. See. e.g.. Blackledge v. Allison. 431 U.S. 63, 74 n.4 (1977); United States v. Dyess. 730 F.3d 354, 359-60 (4th Cir. 2013).
The "Sixth Amendment entitles criminal defendants to the effective assistance of counsel-that is, representation that does not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness in light of prevailing professional norms." Bobby v. Van Hook. 558 U.S. 4, 7 (2009) (per curiam) (quotations omitted). The Sixth Amendment right to counsel extends to all critical stages of a criminal proceeding, including plea negotiations, trial, sentencing, and appeal. See, e.g.. Lafler v. Cooper. 566 U.S. 156, 164-65 (2012); Missouri v. Frye. 566 U.S. 134, 140 (2012); Glover v. United States. 531 U.S. 198, 203-04 (2001). "[S]entencing is a critical stage of trial at which a defendant is entitled to effective assistance of counsel, and a sentence imposed without effective assistance must be vacated and reimposed to permit facts in mitigation of punishment to be fully and freely developed." United States v. Breckenridge. 93 F.3d 132, 135 (4th Cir. 1996); see Glover, 531 U.S. at 203-04. To state a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment, Williams must show that his attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that he suffered prejudice as a result. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-91 (1984).
When determining whether counsel's representation was objectively unreasonable, a court must be "highly deferential" to counsel's performance and must attempt to "eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight." Id. at 689. Therefore, me "court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Id. A party also must show that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the party. See id. at 691-96. A party does so by showing that there is a "reasonable probability" that, but for the deficiency, "the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id. at 694.
When a defendant pleads guilty and later attacks his guilty plea, "to satisfy the 'prejudice' requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." Hill v. Lockhart 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); see Lee v. United States. 137 S.Ct. 1958, 1967 (2017). "Surmounting Strickland's high bar is never an easy task, and the strong societal interest in finality has special force with respect to convictions based on guilty pleas." Lee. 137 S.Ct. at 1967 (citations and quotation omitted).
Williams cannot use section 2255 to attack his advisory guideline range retroactively. See. e.g.. United States v. Foote. 784 F.3d 931, 935-36 (4th Cir. 2015); United States v. Pregent 190 F.3d 279, 283-84 (4th Cir. 1999). Alternatively, Williams has not plausibly alleged prejudice concerning counsel's performance at sentencing. To prove prejudice from deficient performance at sentencing, a defendant must prove a reasonable probability that the defendant would have been sentenced differently if the error had not occurred. See Sears v. Upton. 561 U.S. 945, 955-56 (2010); United States v. Carthorne. 878 F.3d458, 469-70 (4th Cir. 2017). "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Strickland. 466 U.S. at 694. The court properly applied U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(14) to determine Williams's base offense level. Under section 2D1. l(c)(14), the base offense level for possessing less than 10 grams of heroin is 12. See U.S.S.G. § 2D 1.1 (c)(14). The PSR held Williams responsible for 0.22 grams of heroin, resulting in a base offense level 12. See PSR[D.E.41] ¶¶ 10, 58. Under the Guidelines, even if the court held Williams accountable for a lower amount, Williams still would have received a base offense level 12. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. Moreover, in light of this court's extensive discussion of the section 3553(a) factors, Williams has not plausibly alleged that counsel could have done something differently to obtain a different sentence for Williams. Furthermore, this court's alternative variant sentence defeats any claims that counsel's performance at sentencing prejudiced Williams. See Molina-Martinez v. United States. 136 S.Ct. 1338, 1345-47 (2016); United States v. Feldman 793 Fed.Appx. 170, 173-74 (4th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (unpublished); United States v. Gomez-Jimenez. 750 F.3d 370, 382-86 (4th Cir. 2014); United States v. Hargrove. 701 F.3d 156, 160-65 (4th Cir. 2012). Thus, Williams has not plausibly alleged prejudice. See Sears. 561 U.S. at 956: Strickland. 466 U.S. at 689-700.
As for Williams's claim that his counsel was ineffective by encouraging him to plead guilty, that claim likewise fails. The claim is belied by Williams's guilty plea at the Rule 11 proceeding. See [D.E. 30, 32]. During Williams's Rule 11 proceeding, Williams swore that he understood the charges to which he was pleading guilty. Williams also swore that he was fully satisfied with his lawyer's legal services, that he had reviewed and discussed his entire plea agreement with counsel before he signed it, that he understood each term in the plea agreement, and that the plea agreement constituted the entire agreement that he had with the government. Williams also swore that he understood that the court could sentence him up to the statutory maximum on each count of conviction, and that if the court did so, Williams could not withdraw his guilty plea.
Williams's sworn statements at his Rule 11 proceeding bind him. See, e.g.. Blackledge. 431 U.S. at 74; United States v. Moussaoui. 591 F.3d 263, 299-300 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. LeMaster. 403 F.3d 216, 221-23 (4th Cir. 2005). Those sworn statements show that Williams admitted to the charged crimes. Accordingly, Williams has not plausibly alleged "that, but for counsel's [alleged] unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Strickland. 466 U.S. at 694; see Lee, 137 S.Ct. at 1967-69; Hill, 474 U.S. at 59; Fields v. Att'y Gen. of Md.. 956 F.2d 1290, 1297 (4th Cir. 1992). Simply put, Williams would not have "insisted on going to trial." Hill, 474 U.S. at 59; see Lee, 137 S.Ct. at 1967-69; Strickland. 466 U.S. at 694. Thus, to the extent Williams seeks to invalidate his guilty plea, Williams has not plausibly alleged prejudice from his counsel's alleged encouragement to plead guilty pursuant to the plea agreement.
Alternatively, defense counsel's performance at the Rule 11 hearing and sentencing hearing was adequate and falls within the wide range of professional performance. Cf Strickland. 466 U.S. at 691 ("The reasonableness of counsel's actions may be determined or substantially influenced by the defendant's own statements or action. Counsel's actions are usually based, quite properly, on informed strategic choices made by the defendant and on information supplied by the defendant"). Williams accepted responsibility for possessing heroin and a firearm. Cf. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d at 378-79; United States v. Perry. 560 F.3d 246, 254 (4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Burns. 990 F.2d 1426, 1439 (4th Cir. 1993). Moreover, Williams's PSR recounted the factual basis for Williams's guilty plea. See PSR ¶¶ 8-10. Counsel performed reasonably at the Rule 11 hearing and at sentencing. On this record, there was no deficient performance.
After reviewing the claims presented in Williams's motion, the court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the court's treatment of Williams's claims debatable or wrong and that the claims do not deserve encouragement to proceed any further. Accordingly, the court denies a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel. 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
II.
As for Williams's pro se motions for compassionate release, on December 21, 2018, the First Step Act went into effect. See First Step Act, 132 Stat. at 5249. Before the First Step Act, only the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") could file a motion for compassionate release. Under the First Step Act, a sentencing court may modify a sentence of imprisonment either upon a motion of the Director of the BOP "or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
After a defendant meets the exhaustion requirement, a defendant must (1) demonstrate "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for a sentence reduction, or (2) be at least 70 years old, have served at least 30 years in prison, and have the Director of the BOP determine that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of another person or the community. Id. In deciding to reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)(1)(A), a court must consult the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and must ensure that a sentence reduction is "consistent with applicable policy statements" of the United States Sentencing Commission (the "Commission"). Id.
The Commission policy statements include U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Section 1B1.13 essentially parrots section 3582(c)(1)(A)'s requirements and adds that the defendant not be "a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2). Section lB1.13's application notes provide examples of extraordinary and compelling reasons, including: (A) serious medical conditions of the defendant, (B) advanced age of the defendant when coupled with a serious deterioration in physical and mental health due to aging and having served at least 10 years or 75% of his or her imprisonment term (whichever is less), (C) family circumstances, or (D) another extraordinary and compelling reason. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt.n.1. Application note 2 states that "an extraordinary and compelling reason need not have been unforeseen at the time of sentencing to warrant a reduction in the term of imprisonment." U.S.S.G. § lB1.13cmt. n.2. Thus, the fact "that an extraordinary and compelling reason reasonably could have been known or anticipated by the sentencing court does not preclude consideration for a reduction under this policy statement." Id. Application note 3 states, "[p]ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(t), rehabilitation of the defendant is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason for purposes of this policy statement." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.3.
Application note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 states in full:1. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.-Provided the defendant meets the requirements of subdivision (2), extraordinary and compelling reasons existunder any of the circumstances set forth below:(A) Medical Condition of the Defendant.
(i) The defendant is suffering from a terminal illness (i.e., a serious and advanced illness with an end of life trajectory). A specific prognosis of life expectancy (i.e., a probability of death within a specific time period) is not required. Examples include metastatic solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced dementia.
(ii) The defendant is
(I) suffering from a serious physical or medical condition,
(II) suffering from a serious functional or cognitive impairment, or
(IIII) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of the aging process,
that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.(B) Age of the Defendant.-The defendant (i) is at least 65 years old; (ii) is experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process; and (iii) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less.(C) Family Circumstances.
(i) The death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant's minor child or minor children.
(ii) The incapacitation of the defendant's spouse or registered partner when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for the spouse or registered partner.(D) Other Reasons.-As determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, there exists in the defendant's case an extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination with, the reasons described in subdivisions (A) through (C).
The Commission has lacked a quorum since Congress enacted the First Step Act and has not updated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 to account for the First Step Act. Accordingly, section 1B1.13 does not provide a policy where an inmate files a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). See, e.g., United States v. High. 997 F.3d 181, 186 (4th Cir. 2021); United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 330-31 (4th Cir. 20211: United States v. McCoy. 981 F.3d271, 280-84 (4th Cir. 2020). Rather, "[section] 1B1.13 only applies when a request for compassionate release is made upon motion of the Director of the [BOP]." Kibble, 992 F.3d at 330-31. Nevertheless, section IB 1.13 provides informative policy when assessing an inmate's motion, but a court independently determines whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See High. 997 F.3d at 186; McCoy. 981 F.3d at 284. In doing so, the court consults not only U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, but also the text of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the section 3553(a) factors. See, e.g., McCoy. 981 F.3d at 280-84; United States v. Jones. 980 F.3d 1098, 1101-03 (6th Cir. 2020); United States v. Gunn 980 F.3d 1178, 1180-81 (7th Cir. 2020); United States v. Ruffin, 978 F.3d 1000, 1007-08 (6th Cir. 2020); United States v. Brooker. 976 F.3d U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.l. 228, 237-38 (2d Cir. 2020); United States v. Clark. No. I:09cr336-1, 2020 WL 1874140, at *2 (M.D. N.C. Apr. 15, 2020) (unpublished).
Williams contends that he submitted requests for compassionate release to his unit team and the warden, but both were denied. See [D.E. 69] 1-3; see also [D.E. 51]. The government has not invoked section 3582's exhaustion requirement. See United States v. Alam. 960 F.3d 831, 833-34 (6th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the court addresses Williams's claim on the merits.
The Fourth Circuit has not addressed whether section 3582's exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional or claims-processing requirement. The court assumes without deciding that the requirement is a claims-processing rule, and that the government must "properly invoke" the rule for this court to enforce it. See Alam. 960 F.3d at 833-34.
Williams seeks compassionate release pursuant to section 3582(c)(1)(A). In support of his request, Williams cites the COVID-19 pandemic and his hypertension, hemophilia, and arthritis. See DD.E. 51]; DD.E. 69] 2. Williams also cites the conditions at FCI Burner. See [D.E. 51]; [D.E. 69] 1-2.
As for the medical condition of the defendant policy statement, the policy statement requires that the defendant is "suffering from a serious physical or medical condition... from which he or she is not expected to recover." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)(ii). Although Williams states that he suffers from hypertension, hemophilia, and arthritis, he has not demonstrated that he is not going to recover from these conditions or that they cannot be treated while Williams serves his sentence. Accordingly, reducing Williams's sentence is not consistent with application note 1(A). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
As for the "other reasons" policy statement, the court assumes without deciding that the COVID-19 pandemic and Williams's medical conditions are extraordinary and compelling reasons under section 3582(c)(1)(A). Cf. United States v. Raia. 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020) ("|T]he mere existence of COVID-19 in society and the possibility that it may spread to a particular prison alone cannot independently justify compassionate release, especially considering BOP's statutory role, and its extensive and professional efforts to curtail the virus's spread.")- Even so, the section 3553(a) factors counsel against reducing Williams's sentence. See High. 997 F.3d at 187-91; Kibble. 992 F.3d at 331-32; United States v. Chambliss, , 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020); Clark. 2020 WL 1874140, at *3-8.
Williams is 33 years old and engaged in serious criminal conduct in 2018. See PSR ¶¶ 8-10. During a traffic stop, law enforcement recovered .22 grams of heroin and a stolen 9mm handgun from Williams. See Id. Williams is a violent recidivist with convictions for speeding, possession of alcohol by a person under age 21, larceny (two counts), possession of a schedule VI controlled substance (two counts), possession of marijuana (three counts), assault on a female (two counts), obtaining property by false pretense (two counts), and attempting to obtain property by false pretense. See Id. ¶¶ 15-27. Williams also has a history of violating probation. See id.
The court has considered Williams's exposure to COVID-19 and his medical conditions. Cf. Peppery. United States. 562 U.S. 476, 480-81 (2011); High, 997 F.3d at 187-91; United States v. McDonald. 986 F.3d 402, 412 (4th Cir. 2021); United States v. Martin. 916 F.3d 389, 398 (4th Cir. 2019). Having considered the entire record, the steps that the BOP has taken to address COVID-19, the section 3553(a) factors, Williams's arguments, and the need to punish Williams for his serious criminal behavior, to incapacitate Williams, to promote respect for the law, to deter others, and to protect society, the court declines to grant Williams's motion for compassionate release. See, e.g.. Chavez-Meza v. United States. 138 S.Ct. 1959, 1966-68 (2018); High. 997 F.3d at 187-91; Ruffin 978 F.3d at 1008-09; Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94; United States v. Hill. No. 4:13-CR-28-BR, 2020 WL 205515, at *2 (E.D. N.C. Jan. 13, 2020) (unpublished), aff'd, 809 Fed.Appx. 161 (4th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (unpublished).
As for Williams's request for home confinement, Williams seeks relief under the CARES Act. See [D.E. 51]. The CARES Act does not provide this court with the authority to grant home confinement. See United States v. Brummett, No. 20-5626, 2020 WL 5525871, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2020) (unpublished) ("|T]he authority to grant home confinement remains solely with the Attorney General and the BOP."); United States v. McCoy. No. 3:19-CR-35-KDB-DCK, 2020 WL 5535020, at *1 (W.D. N.C. Sept. 15, 2020) (unpublished); United States v. Gray. No. 4:12-CR-54-FL-l, 2020 WL 1943476, at *3 (E.D. N.C. Apr. 22, 2020) (unpublished). Thus, the court dismisses Williams's request for home confinement.
III.
In sum, the court GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss [D.E. 60], DISMISSES Williams's section 2255 motion [D.E. 47, 50], DENIES a certificate of appealability, DENIES Williams's motions for compassionate release [D.E. 51, 69], and DISMISSES Williams's request for home confinement.
SO ORDERED.