Opinion
CRIMINAL 19-283
06-14-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CAMERON NEWTON, Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joy Flowers Conti Senior United States District Judge
Pending before the court is a “motion requesting clarification of judgment” (ECF No. 51) filed pro se by defendant Cameron Newton (“Newton”). The government filed a response in opposition to the motion (ECF No. 54) and the motion is ripe for decision.
In his motion, Newton contends that “the facts surrounding this case seem to either be ambiguous, vague or misunderstood by the [Bureau of Prisons] BOP.” (ECF No. 51 at 2). Newton argues that the Judgment must be clarified because the BOP is holding him responsible for the death that was related to this case and is denying Newton access to “certain rehabilitative programming.” Id. Newton requests that the court “clarify the judgment entered to reflect that the Defendant was not held liable for the death that was related to this case. Id. Newton also argues that the BOP wrongly considered acts to which he did not plead (or was found) guilty.
The government argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Newton's motion because (in substance) it challenges the BOP's execution of Newton's sentence. The government argues that, if the court considers the motion, no clarification is needed because the Judgment is not ambiguous.
Factual and Procedural Background
On October 8, 2019, Newton waived indictment and pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a quantity of heroin and fentanyl on February 10, 2019, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), as charged in count one of the information at Criminal No. 19-283. Newton's guilty plea was entered pursuant to a binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). In ¶ C(5) of the plea agreement, Newton and the government agreed as follows:
5. The parties stipulate that [the victim's] death resulted from use of the heroin and fentanyl distributed to him by Cameron Newton. Cameron Newton agrees to pay any restitution that would be required under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663, 3663A, and/or 3664 as if he was charged and convicted of causing the death of [the victim].
The Probation Office filed a Final Presentence Investigation Report (“PIR”) on December 23, 2019 (ECF No. 26), with an addendum on January 8, 2020. Counsel for Newton and for the government each had an opportunity to submit objections to the PIR. Both the government and Newton objected to ¶ 35 of the PIR, which assigned a criminal history point for a disorderly conduct offense at age 13. The government noted a typo in ¶ 41 (regarding Newton's criminal history points) and Newton noted a misspelling of his brother's name in ¶ 47. Neither party objected to the description of the offense conduct involving Newton's sale of drugs to the victim (PIR ¶¶ 16-20) or to the PIR's summary about the impact of the plea agreement in PIR ¶ 70.
The advisory guideline imprisonment range for Newton was 8 months to 14 months. PIR ¶ 69. Newton and the government, however, negotiated a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement in which they agreed that an upward variance to an 8-year prison sentence was appropriate. Newton benefited from the plea agreement because it enabled him to avoid a statutory mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison that would have applied if the offense of conviction established that death or serious bodily injury resulted from use of the controlled substance.
At the sentencing hearing on February 26, 2020, the court accepted the parties' binding plea agreement and imposed the agreed-upon sentence. The Judgment (ECF No. 41) reflects, in relevant part: (1) Newton was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a quantity of fentanyl and heroin; (2) he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 96 months (i.e., 8 years); (3) the court made various recommendations to the BOP, including that Newton be incarcerated near Pittsburgh, PA, and be permitted to participate in vocational and educational programs; and (4) that he pay restitution to the victim's family.
Discussion
It is somewhat unclear what relief Newton seeks in his pro se motion. The court will consider several possible options: (1) the BOP's implementation of the Judgment; (2) clarification of the Judgment; and (3) modification of the Judgment. Newton is not entitled to relief from this court under any of these options.
1. Implementation by BOP
It appears that Newton may be objecting to the information the BOP considered or to the BOP's actual decision to deny him access to (unspecified) programming. To the extent that Newton challenges the BOP's implementation of his sentence, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider that challenge. The proper vehicle to challenge the execution of a federal prisoner's sentence by the BOP is in a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 146 (3d Cir. 2009). A § 2241 petition must be brought in the federal district court where the defendant is incarcerated. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004).
Newton is serving his sentence at FCI Allenwood in White Deer, PA (see https://www.bop.gOv/mobile/findinmate/index.jsp#inmateresults, last visited May 22, 2023). If he wishes to file a § 2241 petition, therefore, he must do so in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. This court expresses no opinions about the procedural or substantive merits of any such petition.
2. Clarification
To the extent Newton's motion is a request for clarification, the court notes that “the purpose of a motion for clarification is to explain or clarify something ambiguous or vague about a court's decision, not to alter or amend it.” Pub. Int. Legal Found. v. Schmidt, No. 1:19-CV-622, 2023 WL 2778692, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2023) (citations omitted). In this case, the Judgment is not ambiguous. It clearly (and correctly) states Newton's offense of conviction; the prison term imposed; and his restitution obligation. The Judgment does not state that Newton was convicted of an offense involving the death of a user. There is no basis for clarification.
3. Modification of Judgment
To the extent Newton requests that the court modify the Judgment to reflect that he “was not held liable for the death that was related to this case,” (ECF No. 51 at 2), the court notes that the Judgment, once entered, may be modified only under narrow circumstances. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010) (“'[A] judgment of conviction that includes [a sentence of imprisonment] constitutes a final judgment' and may not be modified by a district court except in limited circumstances.”) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b)). Congress provided certain narrow exceptions to finality in § 3582(c) (for example, compassionate release), but no statutory exceptions apply to this case.
The circumstances in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 (i.e., correcting clear error within 14 days after sentencing or reducing a sentence for a defendant's substantial assistance) do not apply. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36: “After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission.” This basis to modify the Judgment does not apply because, as explained above, there was no error (clerical or otherwise) in the Judgment.
In any event, the court must decline Newton's request. The record in this case clearly reflects that Newton accepted responsibility for the victim's death in the plea agreement via his stipulation and the parties negotiated a substantial upward variance from the advisory guideline range to reflect the death. Newton was also ordered to pay restitution to the victim's family. The Judgment reflects that Newton's offense of conviction did not involve the death of the victim -which would have triggered a 20-year mandatory minimum prison term. The Judgment need not be modified.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Newton's motion requesting clarification of his Judgment (ECF No. 51) will be DENIED.
An appropriate order will be entered.