Opinion
Case No. 1:09-cr-20523-5
2023-01-31
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Christopher Allen THREET, Defendant.
Roy Kranz, Janet L. Parker, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney's Office, Bay City, MI, for Plaintiff.
Roy Kranz, Janet L. Parker, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney's Office, Bay City, MI, for Plaintiff.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, United States District Judge
Defendant Christopher Allen Threet has filed a motion for early termination of supervised release. ECF No. 490. As explained hereafter, Defendant's Motion will be denied without prejudice.
I.
In 2011, Defendant was charged with nine counts, stemming from his role in a conspiracy to manufacture, to possess, and to distribute marihuana. See ECF No. 193. In 2012, he pleaded guilty under a Rule 11 plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to manufacture and to possess with the intent to distribute 100 or more marihuana plants, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). ECF No. 293. He was sentenced to 123 months' imprisonment followed by four years of supervised release. ECF No. 337 at PageID.2158-59. In 2015, Defendant's sentence was reduced to 120 months' imprisonment based on a retroactive change in the Sentencing Guidelines. ECF No. 440 at PageID.3104.
While in prison, Defendant was involved in a drug-trafficking and money-laundering operation to distribute K2 in a federal prison. See Def.'s Sent'g Mem., United States v. Threet, No. 2:19-CR-00008-46 (W.D. Penn. July 15, 2020), ECF No. 2200. Defendant was charged in 2019 with one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), see Superseding Indictment, United States v. Threet, No. 2:19-cr-00008-NR (W.D. Penn. June 18, 2019), ECF No. 501, and ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and was sentenced to 13 months' imprisonment. See J., Threet, No. 2:19-CR-00008-46 (W.D. Penn. July 16, 2020), ECF No. 2204.
"Synthetic marijuana, otherwise known as K2 and Spice, is dangerous and affects inmates in different and unpredictable ways. An inmate may dance like a ballerina, scream at guards, attack a correctional officer, fall having a seizure, or have a hallucination. K2 is also deadly and has caused hundreds of drug overdoses." Jessica Warshaw, Utilizing Electronic Mail to Prevent Drug Trafficking in Prisons, 70 DEPAUL L. REV. 63 (2020) (footnotes and citations omitted). "As described by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration: 'A synthetic version of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, K2/Spice is a mixture of plant material sprayed with synthetic psychoactive chemicals.' " Parker v. Jenkins-Grant, No. 4:21-CV-10467, 2022 WL 1725107, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 22, 2022) (citation omitted), R. & R. adopted, No. 21-10467, 2022 WL 1721449 (E.D. Mich. May 27, 2022).
Defendant was released from prison in July 2020 to begin his supervised-release term. ECF No. 492 at PageID.3462. Having completed 63% of his supervised release term, he seeks early termination of supervision. See ECF No. 490. The Government does not oppose early termination, based on Defendant's good conduct, stability, and favorable report from his probation officer. ECF No. 492 at PageID.3463.
Because the relief sought favors Defendant and does not extend his supervised release, and an attorney for the Government has received notice and has had a reasonable opportunity to object, this Court will decide Defendant's Motion on the papers. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.1(c)(2)(B)-(C).
II.
A sentencing court may terminate a term of supervised release if "after considering the factors set forth in [§] 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) . . . such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
The relevant § 3553 factors are:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed--
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
(3) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for--
(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines . . .
Id. § 3553(a). "Early termination of supervised release is a discretionary decision that is only warranted in cases where the defendant shows changed circumstances—such as exceptionally good behavior." United States v. Atkin, 38 F. App'x 196, 198 (6th Cir. 2002) (unpublished) (citing United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32, 36 (2d Cir. 1997)).
(4) any pertinent policy statement . . .
(5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and
(6) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
III.
Defendant asserts his "exceptionally good behavior," successful reintegration, and community involvement warrant early termination of supervised release. ECF No. 490 at PageID.3451, 3455-56.
Since he was released from prison, Defendant has worked 60 hours a week as a construction contractor. Id. at PageID.3456. He reports that he has "reintegrated" with his family, id., and has participated in charity events to raise money for awareness and research groups for autism and breast cancer, as well as local scholarships, id. at PageID.3450-51.
Defendant's probation officer and the Government agree with Defendant's Motion for Early Termination because that he is not a threat to the public. ECF No. 492 at PageID.3462-63.
Although Defendant's Motion and the Government's Response highlight Defendant's achievements, consideration must be given to all the § 3553(a) factors, even those that do not favor early termination. Taken together, § 3553 factors weigh against early termination of supervised release, despite Defendant's successful career and community involvement.
i.
The first factor is "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).
"During the 2009 crop year," Defendant played a vital role in a nine-person conspiracy to cultivate and to distribute marihuana by supplying "mother plants." ECF No. 293 at PageID.1246-47. Cuttings from the mother plants were then provided to coconspirators who would plant the cuttings at various outdoor locations. Id. Defendant also owned a machine to process dried marihuana plants, which he rented to coconspirators for $300 per day after teaching them how to use it. Id. For his supervisory role relating to the machine, Defendant received two more points. PSR ¶ 36.
Notably, however, Defendant's presentence investigation report provides that there was "no true hierarchy in [the] group" underneath Codefendant Rocky Ray Corlew's role as "the central organizer" who "provided the grow location." PSR ¶ 26.
At sentencing, Defendant's criminal-history score was two. See id. ¶ 47. He was disciplined multiple times while incarcerated and, in 2017 and 2018, he "conspired to launder the proceeds of drug trafficking." See Pl.'s Sent'g Mem., United States v. Threet, No. 2:19-CR-00008-46 (W.D. Penn. July 2, 2020), ECF No. 2159. He accepted responsibility for his role in the offense and pled guilty to one charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1956(h). J., Threet, No. 2:19-CR-00008-46 (W.D. Penn. July 16, 2020), ECF No. 2204.
Since Defendant's release from prison in 2020, he has maintained employment, reintegrated with his family, and volunteered in his community. ECF No. 490 at PageID.3450. All commendable.
But he has also violated the terms of his supervised release by testing positive for marijuana, see ECF No. 492 at PageID.3462.
Considering the entire history and characteristics of Defendant—including his criminal activity while incarcerated and the nature of his offense—this factor does not weigh in favor of early termination.
ii.
The second factor is "the need for the sentence imposed." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). This factor addresses the multiple objectives of the criminal sentence, including the need "to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct," "to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant," and "to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner." Id. § 3553(a)(2)(B)-(D).
The Government and Defendant's probation officer agree that Defendant is stable and do not object to the early termination of his supervised release term. ECF No. 492 at PageID.3463. Although persuasive, those opinions suggest that there is no need to deter Defendant from criminal conduct or to protect the public from it. And Defendant has adequate vocational training, as evinced by his success as a construction contractor since July 2020. ECF No. 490 at PageID.3456.
Yet consideration must also be given to Defendant's penitentiary enterprises and his supervised-release violation, both which suggest that supervised release is still necessary to deter his criminal conduct adequately and to help him reintegrate successfully into society. True, Defendant most recently violated the terms of his supervised release in March 2021, nearly two years ago. But Defendant's record reflects 22 months of success after a decade of unsuccessful rehabilitative efforts, as evinced by his involvement in a money-laundering conspiracy related to drug trafficking.
Accordingly, the second factor currently weighs against early termination.
iii.
The third factor is "the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for [Defendant's offense.]" 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4).
The statutory minimum term of Defendant's supervised release is four years. See PSR ¶ 69; accord 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). The Guidelines range for a term of supervised release for Defendant's offense is two to five years. See PSR ¶ 71.
Although Defendant has completed six months more than the recommended minimum two years, he has not completed the statutorily required four years. So, this factor weighs against early termination of supervised release.
Although the United States Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, they "still exert a gravitational pull" during sentencing. See Paul J. Hofer, Federal Sentencing After Booker, 48 CRIME & JUST. 137, 152 (2019).
iv.
The fourth factor is "any pertinent policy statement" that is (1) "issued by the Sentencing Commission" and (2) "in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5).
Defendant's PSR does not identify any pertinent policy statement, and this Court is unaware of any. Therefore, the fourth factor is neutral.
v.
The fifth factor is "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct." Id. § 3553(a)(6).
Although Defendant did not address this factor, his sentence was within the ranges of the relevant statutes and the Sentencing Guidelines. PSR ¶¶ 66-67; see also United States v. Jeter, 721 F.3d 746, 757 (6th Cir. 2013) ("A sentence falling within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable; one falling outside the Guidelines range carries no such presumption."). And the Guidelines recommended two to five years of supervised release for his crimes. See PSR ¶ 71.
But, as noted above, terminating Defendant's supervised release today would result in a supervised-release period less than the four-year statutory minimum. See id. ¶ 69. So, this factor heavily weighs against early termination of supervised release.
vi.
The sixth and final factor is "the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7).
But Defendant was not ordered to pay restitution, so this factor is neutral. ECF No. 337.
vii.
In sum, the relevant § 3553(a) factors score 0-4-2 against early termination of Defendant's supervised-release term. Again, Defendant has proven his commitment to engage with his family and community since his supervised-release term began. But such success does not outweigh his involvement in a money-laundering conspiracy while in prison and, more recently, his violation of his supervised-release terms, especially when Defendant has not yet served the statutory-minimum term of supervised release. Thus, early termination of Defendant's supervised release is not "warranted by [his] conduct . . . and the interest of justice." 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a)(1).
For these reasons, Defendant's Motion will be denied without prejudice until such time that there is further evidence of satisfactory compliance with the conditions of release.
IV.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release, ECF No. 490, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
This is not a final order and does not close the above-captioned case.