Opinion
CRIMINAL 4:07-CR-58-1 (CDL)
11-03-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. MASTER MICHAEL RAMSEY
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
THOMAS Q. LANGSTAFF, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant Master Michael Ramsey has filed a Motion for Compassionate Release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (Doc. 271). Following a review of Defendant's contentions and the government's response, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that Defendant's Motion for Compassionate Release be denied.
Procedural History
By means of a superseding indictment, the Defendant was charged in this Court on January 13, 2009 with felony murder, kidnaping, murder with a firearm during a crime of violence, robbery, motor vehicle theft, and conspiracy to commit robbery. (Doc. 77). Defendant was represented by appointed counsel. (Doc. 54).
Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty on all counts, and the Court sentenced Defendant to concurrent life imprisonment terms on the felony murder and kidnaping convictions, forty (40) years concurrent on the robbery, motor vehicle theft, and conspiracy convictions, and twenty-five (25) years consecutive on the murder with a firearm during a crime of violence conviction. (Docs. 108, 117). Defendant filed an appeal and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions by Order dated April 28, 2010. (Doc. 150). The Supreme Court of the United States denied Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari on October 4, 2010. Defendant effectively filed a Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on September 29, 2011, and following an evidentiary hearing, this motion was denied by Order dated November 18, 2013. (Docs. 169, 234). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals thereafter denied Defendant's motion for a certificate of appealability and denied Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. (Docs. 249, 250). The Supreme Court of the United States denied Defendant's petition for a writ of certiorari as to the Motion to Vacate on October 6, 2014. (Doc. 251).
Finally, the Eleventh Circuit denied Defendant's Motion to File a second or successive §2255 motion on April 28, 2020, and this Court denied Defendant's Motion for Commutation of Sentence on December 18, 2020. (Docs. 263, 269).
Legal Standards
A district court has no inherent authority to modify a defendant's sentence and may do so “only when authorized by statute or rule”. United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597, 606 (11th Cir. 2015). “A statutory exception exists for compassionate release [under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)]”. United States v. Giron, __ F.4th __, 2021 WL 4771621 at *1 (11th Cir., Oct. 13, 2021).
In relevant part, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) provides that
the court, upon motion of . . . the defendant after defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights . . . may reduce the term of imprisonment . . ., after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years in prison . . . for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is currently imprisoned . . . and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.
Thus, in order to grant compassionate release, a court must find that all three (3) of these necessary conditions are satisfied, to wit, “support in the §3553(a) factors, extraordinary and compelling reasons [or age and time served requirements], and adherence to § 1B1.13's policy statement”. United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237-38 (11th Cir. 2021). In regard to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, the Eleventh Circuit has determined that “1B1.13 is an applicable policy statement for all Section 3582(c)(1)(A) motions, and Application Note 1(D) does not grant discretion to courts to develop ‘other reasons' that might justify a reduction in a defendant's sentence.” United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2021).
Defendant filed an application for Reduction in Sentence with the Bureau of Prisons on February 9, 2021, this application was denied by the Complex Warden on February 16, 2021, and Defendant's appeal was denied on March 9, 2021. (Doc. 271-1, pp. 2-5). Thus, Defendant has exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing his Motion for Compassionate Release, as required by §3582(c)(1)(A). The government agrees that Defendant has exhausted administrative remedies, and the Court therefore has the authority to consider the Motion for Compassionate Release. United States v. Harris, 989 F.3d 908 (11th Cir. 2021).
Discussion
Defendant, who is 39 years old and has been in custody for approximately 15 years, raises various arguments in support of his Motion for Compassionate Release. Defendant argues that his history and characteristics, including the fact that he provided assistance to law enforcement after the crime, that he has accepted some level of responsibility for his actions, his PTSD, adult antisocial behavior, hypertension, and extreme anxiety, his age at the time of the offenses, and his attempts to rehabilitate are factors supporting his Motion. Defendant further argues that the Court failed to consider certain § 3553 factors in sentencing, resulting in a sentence that was not substantively reasonable, that his sentences were impermissibly stacked, that there were sentencing disparities between him and a co-defendant, and that there are doubts as to his guilt.
In response to Defendant's motion, the government contends that Defendant has not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons to justify compassionate release, and that Defendant is a danger to the community.
“[N]othing on the face of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires a court to conduct the compassionate-release analysis in any particular order. Nothing . . . requires a court to find ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons' for release before considering the § 3553(a) factors or § 1B1.13's policy statement.” Tinker, 14 F.4th at 1237. See also United States v. Sylvin, 2021 WL 4704562 at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 8, 2021) (“[T]he district court may deny relief due to the fact the defendant is not statutorily eligible because no extraordinary and compelling reasons exist, or because relief would be inappropriate under the Section 3553(a) factors, or . . . for both reasons.”).
Extraordinary and compelling reasons
The Eleventh Circuit has limited “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to those set out in the Sentencing Commissioner's policy statement in United States Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.13. Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1262; United States v. Worthy, 2021 WL 4627309, *2 (11th Cir., Oct. 7, 2021). The commentary to § 1B1.13 provides that, in addition to a finding that a defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, extraordinary and compelling reasons can support a sentence reduction based on the medical condition of the defendant, the age of the defendant, the defendant's family circumstances, and for other reasons. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1). Defendant appears to allege that he satisfies the extraordinary and compelling reasons criteria based on his medical conditions and “other reasons”.
A defendant's medical condition will be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason for a reduction in sentence if “[t]he defendant is suffering from a terminal illness, . . . a serious physical or medical condition, . . . a serious functional or cognitive impairment, or 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.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1(A)).
The only medical conditions mentioned by Defendant are PTSD, adult antisocial behavior, hypertension, and extreme anxiety. Although he references medical records attached to his Motion for Compassionate Release, no medical records are in fact attached to the motion, and Defendant has not offered any evidence of these conditions or their degree of severity. Defendant does not detail any terminal illness or serious functional or cognitive impairment or deteriorating physical or mental health due to the aging process. Defendant has not demonstrated that any of his medical conditions “substantially diminishes” his ability “to provide self-care” in prison, and are conditions from which he is not “expected to recover”. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1(A)).
To the extent that Defendant asserts that he qualifies for a sentence reduction for “other reasons”, this category of qualification requires a showing that “[a]s 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 [of medical condition, age, or family circumstances of the defendant].” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment. (n.1(D)). No such determination by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons appears herein. Defendant asserts that the Court may reduce his sentence apart from and without consideration of the policy statement set out in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. However, as pointed out by the government, the Eleventh Circuit has clearly held that the policy statement set out in § 1B1.13 governs all motions under § 3582(c)(1)(A) and a district court lacks the authority to determine if a defendant's circumstances qualify as an “other reason” under § 1B1.13. Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1263.
The burden is on the Defendant to establish his entitlement to compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A), and he has failed to come forth with sufficient allegations or evidence to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction in his sentence. United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013).
§3553 (a) factors
Moreover, Defendant has not carried his burden to show that release is appropriate under §3553(a). Pursuant to §3553(a), the Court is to consider the following factors in imposing a sentence:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the
Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9) the need to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities; (10) the need to provide restitution to victims.United States v. Macli, 842 F. A'ppx 549, 552 n.1 (11th Cir. 2021).
Defendant has not established that any of these factors now weigh in favor of granting his Motion for Compassionate Release. In regard to the nature of the offense, the need for the sentences, and the need to protect the public, Defendant's convictions arose from the murder and robbery of taxi cab driver Jack Horne, Jr., whose body was found on August 11, 2006 in a remote wooded area on the Fort Benning Military Reservation in Columbus, Georgia. Horne had been reported missing on August 7, 2006. Surveillance video from the apartment complex where Horne's cab was found led to the arrest and charging of the Petitioner and a co-defendant for Horne's murder, kidnapping, and burglary. Defendant was found guilty on all counts following a jury trial, was sentenced to life imprisonment plus consecutive terms of imprisonment and has served only fifteen (15) years of his sentences. Defendant purports to accept some responsibility for the crimes for which he was convicted, yet also continues to deny any involvement.
Defendant also provides evidence that he is receiving needed educational and medical care while in prison, detailing the list of courses he has completed while imprisoned and maintaining that he has received spiritual teaching and counseling while in prison.
To the extent that Defendant asserts that the Court should take into consideration changes in sentencing laws, whereby stacking of multiple 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) offenses is now prohibited, Defendant was only charged with and convicted of one § 924(c) offense. To the extent that Defendant maintains that his § 924(c) sentence was impermissibly “stacked” onto his other sentences, “a defendant is subject to a mandatory, consecutive sentence for a § 924(c) conviction”. Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8, 13 (2010). Thus, there is no merit to Defendant's contention that the Court impermissibly “stacked” his sentences. Finally, Defendant has not pointed to any “unwanted sentencing disparities” that would support the granting of a sentence reduction.
Defendant's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 272) is DENIED.
Conclusion
Inasmuch as Defendant has failed to establish the basis for a sentence reduction, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that the Defendant's Motion for Compassionate Release be DENIED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. The District Judge shall make a de novo determination as to those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made; all other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed by the District Judge for clear error.
The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.