Opinion
CAUSE NO. 1:17-CR-07(4) DRL-SLC
2021-08-30
Anthony W. Geller, Stacey R. Speith, Government Attorneys, US Attorney's Office, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiff.
Anthony W. Geller, Stacey R. Speith, Government Attorneys, US Attorney's Office, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiff.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Damon R. Leichty, Judge On October 4, 2014, 2500 members shot up a rival gang's home in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Ronnie Burrus fired a .45 caliber Taurus at two rival members and hit another victim. He pleaded guilty to counts 9-14 of an 18-count indictment—one count of assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1959(a)(3) ; two counts of attempted assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1959(a)(6) ; and three counts of discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
"2500" is a Fort Wayne enterprise or gang engaged in drug and firearm trafficking. The group is closely tied with the "Grit Gang" in Bloomington, Indiana. Given their close association, the court refers to "2500" collectively for 2500 and Grit Gang.
SENTENCING GUIDELINES
The court must first calculate the guideline sentence correctly, then decide what is the right and reasonable sentence for this defendant. Nelson v. United States , 555 U.S. 350, 351, 129 S.Ct. 890, 172 L.Ed.2d 719 (2009) ; United States v. Schmidt , 930 F.3d 858, 862 (7th Cir. 2019). The 2018 sentencing guidelines apply. See Peugh v. United States , 569 U.S. 530, 531, 133 S.Ct. 2072, 186 L.Ed.2d 84 (2013) ; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11.
After an evidentiary hearing, the court ruled on myriad objections (ECF 394). The court now adopts as its findings ¶¶ 1-150 of the presentence report, specifically including ¶¶ 123-130 concerning his financial condition and earning ability.
Mr. Burrus starts at level 33 on counts 9, 11, and 13. U.S.S.G. §§ 2A2.1(a)(1), 2E1.3(a)(2). His willful obstruction of justice adds two levels to each count. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The grouping rules assign a single unit to each count, thereby taking his combined offense level upward three levels to level 38. U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4. His clear and timely acceptance of responsibility reduces this calculation to level 35. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
The guidelines assess two criminal history points against Mr. Burrus for two prior sentences (criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon and marijuana possession). He receives two additional points because he committed today's federal offense while under a criminal justice sentence for his 2014 marijuana conviction. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). These four points place him in criminal history category III. U.S.S.G. Chap. 5A.
There the guidelines recommend a sentencing range of 210-262 months on counts 9, 11, and 13, U.S.S.G. chap. 5A, but a statutory maximum of 36 months applies to counts 9 and 11, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(6), and 240 months (20 years) to count 13, 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(3). The guideline sentence on each of counts 10, 12, and 14 is the statutory term of 120 months (10 years). 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) ; U.S.S.G. § 2K2.4(b).
DISCUSSION
The court decides this sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Booker v. United States , 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Turning to the statutory factors, the court must arrive at a reasonable sentence: one sufficient but not greater than necessary to satisfy the statute's purposes. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Much has been said of this case already. Little racketeering activity by an enterprise could be called more serious. See 18 U.S.C §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A). Drug and weapons trafficking is altogether serious, but when it elevates to a shooting free-for-all of residential homes that intends to kill rivals and wantonly disregards the lives of many other innocent neighbors and children living nearby who barely escape serious injury or death, only serious injury or tragic death could be characterized the more serious offense. The shooting involved numerous shots, leaving two houses riddled with bullets, one teenager hit in the finger, another teenager's ears ringing because a shot came so close to her head, and two children with bullet holes above their bed. The miracle that no one was seriously hurt or killed isn't a reason for any material grace given the circumstances of this ongoing war. Leaders of such groups must understand the significant consequences of such criminal conduct and the significant collateral effects to others in our community, particularly given the challenges the City of Fort Wayne faces in this regard and the need for general deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B).
For his part, Mr. Burrus wanted to "catch a body," fired his weapon several times (with a red laser sight) intending to do so, and then glamorized the event in YouTube videos. He engaged rival "ops" in another incident at a liquor store that same night where he pointed and cocked his gun. He thereafter plotted more violence, saying 2500 would never stop to exact revenge for his fallen comrade and that 2500 should be more organized the next time. Protecting the public from such criminal persistence toward violence and deterring future felonies through his incapacitation are paramount goals, see 18 U.S.C §§ 3553(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), particularly when obstructing justice by actively trying to obligate someone else for the firearms was his very next thought, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A).
Seven .45 caliber casings fired from the same gun were found at the scene. These casings were later matched to a .45 caliber Taurus pistol, the same gun Mr. Burrus used, seized in an unrelated ATF case. PSR ¶ 22.
Mr. Burrus often led in that effort to obstruct the law by getting a woman to retrieve the guns, convincing her to claim the guns, instructing someone to "coach her," and accompanying her to the police station to get the guns. His role in attempting to obstruct justice stands out in fair measure from certain of his cohorts. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(6) ; Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 54, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) ; United States v. Statham, 581 F.3d 548, 556 (7th Cir. 2009). His fervor for 2500's identity and criminal activity, backed by violence, underscores the need for today's sentence.
At age 28, Mr. Burrus has a lower adult criminal score than one might expect from someone with his criminal activity—now graduating to these serious federal offenses—but he also has been afforded pretrial diversion in two adult cases and informal handling of five juvenile cases. He has had chances at various programs and rehabilitation. The criminal justice system has afforded him some considerable grace already. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).
That said, this isn't his first firearm-related offense. His unhealthy relationship with firearms and violence indicates that the predictive measures of future violent crime are conservative but for a robust sentence today. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B) ; see also United States Sent. Comm'n, Recidivism Among Federal Firearms Offenders 17, 43 (2019) ("firearms offenders recidivated at a higher rate than non-firearms offenders by a margin of over 21 percentage points") ("Violent section 924(c) offenders generally recidivated at a higher rate, more quickly, and were more likely to commit another violent offense in the future."). The recidivism risk—particularly for firearm crimes—will tend to decline measurably over age 50. See United States Sent. Comm'n, The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 22, 25, Fig. 19 (2017).
Mr. Burrus describes a great upbringing in a low-crime, safe neighborhood, free from abuse in which all his needs were met. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). This is quite an advantage compared to many defendants the court sentences. His father passed away from natural causes before his birth. Even so, he had strong family support through his mother, siblings, and today the mother of his two children. His mother describes him as a "good dad" and says she has witnessed positive changes during his pretrial incarceration. Though not without past drug use, he has been ostensibly resistant to addiction. He graduated from high school and attended some college. His employment has been scant. His youth presents opportunity, but negative peer association and his choices have steered him from much more capable potential.
The government recommends a sentence of 240 months (plus the consecutive 120 months on the § 924(c) charges), whereas Mr. Burrus advocates for a variance downward to 120 months. The court considers the totality of today's sentence. Though separate § 924(c) charges may stack on each other, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) ; United States v. Ginglen , 467 F.3d 1071, 1072 (7th Cir. 2006), they won't under these circumstances, see United States v. Cureton , 739 F.3d 1032, 1040-42 (7th Cir. 2014) ; see, Cf. United States v. Cejas , 761 F.3d 717, 732 (7th Cir. 2014). Each § 924(c) count rests on a separate predicate offense, but in truth not separate predicate conduct.
Mr. Burrus allocuted. See , e.g. , United States v. Griffin , 521 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2008). He accepted responsibility in the guideline sense and apologized to the victims and his family. The court notes that his indignant support of 2500's criminal enterprise immediately after the shooting in 2014 has persisted even into 2021. For instance, he claimed just in March 2021 that he remained "factual[ly] innocent" of the charge in count 13, and seemingly for the rather poor reason that he hadn't seen the victim's medical records. In addition, at sentencing he was less than forthright about his role in obstructing justice. His detention for the last four years (August 2017) ostensibly hasn't moved the needle toward recognition or reformation much.
Though the recommended guideline sentence proves only an initial benchmark, see Freeman v. United States , 564 U.S. 522, 529, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) ; Gall , 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586, a guideline sentence tends to pose the best hope, on a national basis, that today's sentence will avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) ; United States v. Scott , 631 F.3d 401, 405 (7th Cir. 2011) ; United States v. Boscarino , 437 F.3d 634, 637 (7th Cir. 2006). The serious nature of these offenses, Mr. Burrus’ leadership at times, and his zeal for this enterprise make that undoubtedly so—structuring the sentence as the court has. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2). The court would reach today's sentence notwithstanding its ruling on the objections. Review of all factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) persuades the court that the following sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary to satisfy federal sentencing goals: 36 months on counts 9 and 11 and 240 months on count 13 to be served concurrently, and 120 months on each of counts 10, 12, and 14 to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to counts 9, 11, and 13.
For counts 9 and 11, the court may impose a term of supervised release not more than 1 year. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(3) ; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(3) (1 year). As to counts 10, 12, and 14, the court may impose a term of not more than 5 years, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1) ; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(1) (2-5 years); and as to count 13, a term of not more than 3 years may be imposed, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2) ; see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(2) (1-3 years). These terms run concurrently. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e). Terms of 1 year on counts 9, 11, and 13 and 2 years on counts 10, 11, and 12 are appropriate.
Mr. Burrus can't pay the fines recommended by the guidelines even if afforded the most generous of installment payment schedules, so the court imposes no fine. A special assessment of $100.00 on each count is mandatory. 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A).
SENTENCE
Accordingly, it is the court's judgment that the defendant, Ronnie D. Burrus, is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of 36 months on counts 9 and 11 and 240 months on count 13 to be served concurrently; and 120 months on each of counts 10, 12, and 14 to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to counts 9, 11, and 13.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3585, the court leaves it to the Bureau of Prisons to determine the appropriate amount of time served to be credited toward the defendant's sentence. The court recommends that the Bureau of Prisons designate as the place of the defendant's confinement, consistent with his security classification as determined by the Bureau of Prisons, the federal facility in Ashland, Kentucky if appropriate or where he may be located as reasonably close as possible to his family in Bloomington, Indiana.
Upon release from prison, the defendant will be placed on supervised release for terms of 1 year on counts 9, 11, and 13 and 2 years on counts 10, 12, and 14, all terms to run concurrently. While on supervised release, he must comply with the terms of supervision set forth in ¶¶ 151-163 of the presentence report, which paragraphs the court incorporates as part of this sentence having made an independent judgment that they should be imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). The defendant expressly waived reading of these supervisory conditions.
The court imposes no fine. The defendant must pay to the United States a special assessment of $100.00 on each count, which is due immediately.
The court grants the government's motion to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment only vis-à-vis this defendant.
SO ORDERED.