378 F. Supp. 3d 1125
N.D. Fla.2019Background
- Defendant Demetris S. Blocker pleaded guilty in 2007 to a conspiracy count (involving powder and crack cocaine) and two crack-distribution counts; he was sentenced to concurrent 20-year minimum terms.
- At plea and sentencing Blocker admitted responsibility for at least 500 g of powder and at least 50 g of crack; post-arrest statements described weekly purchases and conversion to crack, but did not explicitly state that all powder was converted to crack.
- The Presentence Report attributed 907 g of crack to the conspiracy based on Blocker’s statements and a conversion estimate; Blocker objected to the total but did not disclaim responsibility for 50 g of crack or the 80% conversion ratio.
- The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) raised crack quantity thresholds (5→28 g; 50→280 g) but was not retroactive; the First Step Act (2018) made those quantity changes partially retroactive for eligible "covered offenses."
- The central factual/legal question is whether Blocker’s conspiracy involved at least 280 g of crack (which would leave his statutory penalty unchanged) or less than 280 g (which could make him eligible for a reduction under the First Step Act).
Issues
| Issue | Blocker’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether eligibility under the First Step Act is determined by the offense conduct or by the indictment’s charged quantities | "Indictment-controls": eligibility should be based on the indictment’s charged quantities (not actual drug amounts) | "Offense-controls": eligibility depends on the actual offense conduct/quantity for which the defendant was responsible | Court rejects indictment-controls and adopts offense-controls; eligibility depends on the actual quantity of crack involved in the violation |
| Whether the record establishes that Blocker’s conspiracy involved ≥280 g of crack (making him ineligible) | Blocker argues record does not show all powder was converted to crack; he objected to the PSR’s total | Government contends it could prove at least 400 g of crack (and could have at trial/sentencing) | Court finds the record does not resolve the historical-fact question; an evidentiary hearing is required |
| Whether First Step Act’s changes to prior-conviction definitions could benefit Blocker | N/A (Blocker does not rely on this) | Government notes Blocker’s prior conviction meets the First Step Act’s current definition so no change would help him | Court notes those definitional changes, even if retroactive, would not change Blocker’s status because his prior conviction satisfies the new criteria |
| Whether sentence should be reduced now without additional factfinding | Blocker seeks reduction under First Step Act | Government opposes unless court finds offense involved quantities making him eligible | Court orders a status conference and says an evidentiary hearing is necessary unless Blocker waives it; no reduction granted at this time |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (defendant has right to jury trial on any fact increasing maximum sentence, other than prior conviction)
- United States v. Dodd, 372 F. Supp. 3d 795 (S.D. Iowa 2019) (district-court decision applying an indictment-based approach to First Step Act eligibility)