Opinion
CAUSE NO.: 1:06-CR-23-TLS
08-28-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MELVIN TAYLOR
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 585] of the Court's Opinion and Order [ECF No. 583] Denying the Defendant's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person In Federal Custody. The Defendant is currently incarcerated under 188-month term of imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, which represents the high end of his advisory Guideline range.
On September 4, 2012, the Defendant filed a Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person In Federal Custody. In his Motion, the Defendant raised four grounds for relief. Two of the grounds challenged the drug quantity that the Court used to determine his sentence. The Defendant's sentence was based on a drug quantity of between 5 and 15 kilograms of cocaine. The Defendant raised one claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue a plea bargain for him. He also asserted, in a separate ground, that it was improper to enhance his offense level by two points for a managerial role, and that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the enhancement. The court considered and rejected these arguments in an opinion filed on June 7, 2013.
In light of the recent opinion handed down by the Supreme Court in Alleyne v. United States, the Defendant filed a Motion for the Court to reconsider his § 2255 motion. The Defendant raises a challenge to the drug quantity that the Court used to determine his sentence and to the enhancement of his offense level by two points for a managerial role.
While there are no provisions for motions to reconsider in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, motions filed in a timely manner are treated just like a motion filed under Rule 59(e). United States v. Gargano, 826 F.2d 610, 611 (7th Cir. 1987). A motion to reconsider is appropriate where there is a "controlling or significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the court." Neal v. Honeywell, Inc., No. 93-1143, 1996 WL 627616, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 1996) (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). However, these problems "rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare." Id.
The Defendant asks the Court for reconsideration of his § 2255 Motion in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), in which the Court held that "[f]acts that increase the mandatory minimum sentence are . . . elements and must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt" because they "increase[] the punishment above what is otherwise legally prescribed." Alleyne at 2158. However, the Court also made it clear that they still recognized the exercise of sentencing discretion within the statutory limits and informed by judicial factfinding; "[e]stablishing what punishment is available by law and setting a specific punishment within the bounds that the law has prescribed are two different things." Id. at 2163 (quoting Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 519 (Thomas, J., concurring)).
Although Alleyne established a new rule of constitutional law, it does not provide relief to the Defendant. The Defendant's position, that his mandatory minimum was increased based on factors that were not decided by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, is incorrect. First, the drug quantity was submitted to the jury, which did in fact determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the drug quantity involved in the Defendant's offense was 5 kilograms or more of cocaine [Verdict Form No. 1, ECF No. 289]. Thus, the jury's verdict by itself required a 120-month minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Second, the Defendant erroneously refers to the mandatory minimum and the Guideline range interchangeably when he argues that the Court should not have considered his role in the offense, which was not submitted to the jury, to sentence him at the high end of the Guideline range. The ruling handed down in Alleyne applies to mandatory statutory floors and not to factors that increase the advisory guideline range. Here, the two point managerial role enhancement was applied as a part of the guideline calculation; it did not increase the mandatory minimum to which the Defendant was otherwise exposed. Therefore, the Court finds that the two point enhancement was not an essential ingredient of the offense that was required to be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant's sentence does not violate the statutory scheme or the rule announced in Alleyne.
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 585].
____________________
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT