Opinion
06-cr-143 (JGK)
12-23-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. MARC MUNSON, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge :
The defendant, Marc Munson, moves pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) to reduce his sentence of imprisonment based on extraordinary and compelling reasons. The defendant is currently serving his sentence at FCI Allenwood Low ("Allenwood Low") in Pennsylvania. For the reasons explained below, the application is granted.
The defendant was found guilty following a jury trial of a conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812 and 841(b)(1)(A). On September 19, 2008, the Court imposed a sentence principally consisting of 252 months imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release. ECF No. 167. The Court determined that the Sentencing Guidelines provided for an Offense Level of 42, and a Criminal History Category of I, yielding a Sentencing Guideline Range of 360 months' to life imprisonment. The Guideline Range was driven by the amount of marijuana involved in the conspiracy - over 20,000 kilograms which resulted in an Offense Level of 36, together with a four level enhancement for the defendant's leadership role in the conspiracy, and a two level enhancement for the defendant's attempt to obstruct justice through an attempt to bribe a co-conspirator. Sent. Tr. at 21-25. The Court varied downward significantly to the sentence of 252 months' imprisonment based on, among other factors, the defendant's lack of prior criminal activity, the lack of any violence or use of firearms, strong family connections, and a determination that the sentence was sufficient, given the defendant's age of 46, to provide adequate deterrence and to ensure the safety of the community.
The defendant initially moved for a reduction in his sentence based on a reduction in the base Guideline level applicable to marijuana. Amendment 782 to the Guidelines generally reduced the offense levels for drug offenses by two levels, which would reduce the Guideline Range for the defendant to 292 to 365 months - a reduction of 68 months at the low end of the Guideline Range. The defendant also argued that his sentence was disproportionate to the sentences imposed on others in the conspiracy, all of whom had now been released from prison. He also argued that his demonstrated efforts to better himself and near-perfect disciplinary record while in prison weighed in favor of a reduction in his sentence. Finally, he argued that changes in societal views toward the criminalization of marijuana justified relief. In subsequent papers, the defendant argued that the existence of COVID-19 and the dangers it posed for him justified a reduction in his sentence.
Section 3582(c)(1)(A) authorizes a court to reduce a term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable, if the court finds that "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The statute also requires that the defendant exhaust his administrative remedies by at least making a request to the Bureau of Prisons for compassionate release and allowing for the lapse of 30 days following the request. While the statute had also required that the reduction was to be "consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission," the Sentencing Commission failed to adopt such statements and the Court of Appeals for Second Circuit has held that the previous policy statements applied to requests by the Bureau of Prisons, but not to requests by defendants made directly to the court. See United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228, 237 (2d Cir. 2020) ("[T]he First Step Act freed district courts to consider the full slate of extraordinary and compelling reasons that an imprisoned person might bring before them in motions for compassionate release.").
The defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a request with the Warden of Allenwood Low for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) based on the severity of his sentence, its disproportionate nature, his rehabilitation, and the changing societal views regarding the criminalization of marijuana. ECF No. 274, Ex. A. The Warden denied the request, explaining that he understood that the defendant was claiming that "the law regarding your conviction has changed since the time of your sentencing," but the "Bureau of Prisons does not have the authority, through its compassionate release/reduction in sentence procedures, to reduce an inmate's sentence based on the amendment of the sentencing guidelines. You may petition your sentencing court directly and request to be resentenced under the amended sentencing guidelines." ECF No. 274, Ex. B.
The Government argues that the defendant has not exhausted his administrative remedies because he has never made a request to the Warden to be released on compassionate release because of the existence of COVID-19. That is true, and the Court does not understand why defense counsel did not make such a request. But the defendant's request for compassionate release based on the existence of COVD-19 is the least compelling, and ultimately unpersuasive, reason for compassionate release. The defendant has not identified any particular conditions that make him particularly susceptible to COVID-19 or that would make him particularly vulnerable to the disease. The defendant is 58 years old and in apparent good health, and the defendant has not attempted to demonstrate any medical conditions that would make him vulnerable. Moreover, there is no evidence that there have been any cases of COVID-19 at Allenwood Low. As such, there is simply no basis for compassionate release based on the general existence of COVID-19.
However, the defendant has made a persuasive case for a sentence reduction based on the other factors he has identified. In Brooker, the Court of Appeals explained that district courts have broad discretion in considering whether to grant a motion for compassionate release. Brooker, 976 F.3d at 237-38 ("The only statutory limit on what a court may consider to be extraordinary and compelling is that '[r]ehabilitation . . . alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.'") (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 994(t)). The Brooker court noted:
[T]he sentencing court's statements about the injustice of his lengthy sentence might perhaps weigh in favor of a sentence reduction. Indeed, Congress seemingly contemplated that courts might consider such circumstances when it passed the original compassionate release statute in 1984.Id. at 238 (citing S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 55-56 (1984)). In this case, the defendant's sentence should be reduced because the defendant's sentence is too long in view of the relevant factors listed in section 3553(a). The Guideline Sentence Range has been reduced under Amendment 782 by 68 months at the low end of the Guideline Sentencing Range, reflecting the determination of the Sentencing Commission that the drugs involved in this case typically warrants a lower sentence than originally calculated. This Court originally varied downwardly by nine years from the low end of the then-applicable Guideline Sentencing Range, based on the Court's view that the drug conspiracy in this case was atypical, in view of the fact that the conspiracy did not involve firearms or the use of violence, and the amount of marijuana was a poor indication of the seriousness of the offense.
The defendant would not be eligible for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) which provides for a reduction in sentence if the defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission because that provision does not apply in a case such as the present one where the Court sentenced the defendant to a sentence below the amended Guideline Sentencing Range. See United States v. Karkenny, 79 F. Supp. 3d 494, 495 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). However, there is nothing that prevents the Court from taking into account a lowered Guideline Sentencing Range as an indication of the Sentencing Commission's view of the categorical seriousness of the offense as one of the factors to determine whether extraordinary and compelling reasons exist for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). --------
It is plain that the Court would have imposed a substantially lower sentence at the time of sentence if the Court began its sentencing calculation using the current Guideline Sentencing Range as a starting point to calculate the appropriate sentence in this case. It is also significant that the defendant is the only remaining defendant involved in the conspiracy in this case who remains incarcerated. A substantially lower sentence will be sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offense and the need for deterrence. With respect to deterrence, it is plain that the defendant, now 58 years old and having spent twelve years in prison, is a low risk of recidivism. Moreover, the defendant has provided substantial evidence of rehabilitation because he has a near spotless record while imprisoned at a low risk facility and an impressive record of courses including drug treatment classes. While the Court of Appeals has stressed that rehabilitation cannot be the sole basis for a reduced sentence, Brooker, 976 F.3d at 237-38, the defendant's rehabilitation can be taken into account along with other factors in determining to reduce the defendant's sentence.
On balance, a reduction of the defendant's sentence to 15 years' imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release, should be sufficient but no greater than necessary, to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to afford adequate deterrence, and to protect the public from further crimes. The defendant has already made use of extensive courses given by the Bureau of Prisons and is not in need of further correctional treatment.
CONCLUSION
The Court has considered all of the arguments of the parties. To the extent not specifically addressed above, the remaining arguments are either moot or without merit. For the reasons explained above, the defendant's motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) is granted. The defendant's sentence is reduced to 180 months' imprisonment. The remaining terms of the defendant's Judgment of conviction remain the same, including five years of supervised release including the same conditions of supervised release. The Court will enter an Amended Judgment. In addition, this Court would give prompt consideration to any applications relating to the defendant's medical treatment at Allenwood Low.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
December 23, 2020
/s/ John G. Koeltl
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge