United States v. Simons
375 F. Supp. 3d 379
E.D.N.Y2019Background
- In 2009 Cheyenne Simons pled guilty to a multi-count indictment for a conspiracy to distribute cocaine base (crack) and related distribution counts, plus a §924(c) firearm count; he was sentenced to 144 months (ten-year mandatory on the conspiracy + consecutive 2 years on the gun count).
- At sentencing the court found, after a Fatico hearing, that Simons sold more than 500 grams of crack; he was treated as a career offender under the Guidelines and received a sentence within the statutory mandatory-minimum framework then in effect.
- The Fair Sentencing Act (2010) reduced statutory penalties for crack offenses but was not retroactive at enactment; the First Step Act (2018) made the Fair Sentencing Act’s changes retroactive under §404 for eligible prisoners.
- The government conceded Simons is eligible for First Step Act relief but urged the court not to reduce the original sentence; Simons moved for resentencing under §404.
- The court concluded Simons is eligible, held that judicial factfinding at a Fatico hearing cannot re-establish a higher mandatory minimum that the jury/grand jury or plea did not find, recalculated Guidelines/statutory ranges under the Fair Sentencing Act, and granted a reduction to time served with four years’ supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility under First Step Act §404 | Simons: his convictions are "covered offenses" and he was sentenced pre-Fair Sentencing Act, so he is eligible for resentencing | Gov't: concedes eligibility but contends court should not reduce sentence | Court: Simons is eligible; statutory conditions satisfied |
| Effect of judge-found drug quantity (Fatico) on statutory minimum | Simons: plea/grand jury quantity controls; Fatico findings cannot restore a higher mandatory minimum | Gov't: impliedly argued original sentencing factors justify no reduction; suggested Fatico findings relevant to sentence | Court: Fatico findings cannot increase mandatory minimums; statutory penalties depend on jury/plea-admitted facts |
| Appropriate guidelines/statutory range on resentencing | Simons: new statutory scheme and amended Guidelines reduce applicable range | Gov't: urged deference to original §3553(a) analysis and no arbitrary reduction | Court: recalculated Guidelines and statutory ranges under Fair Sentencing Act as retroactively applied by First Step Act, producing lower guidelines range though §924(c) adds consecutive minimum |
| Whether to exercise discretion to reduce sentence | Simons: argues rehabilitation, time served, and changed federal policy support reduction | Gov't: warns against revisiting original §3553(a) assessment and arbitrary reductions | Court: exercised discretion to reduce to time served (8-month reduction), citing changed congressional policy, rehabilitation, public safety and proportionality concerns |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (explaining purpose and scope of the Fair Sentencing Act)
- Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8 (holding §924(c) consecutive minimums apply despite longer drug mandatory minimums)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (any fact increasing mandatory minimum is an element for jury finding)
- Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (Guidelines and statutory limits anchor sentencing analysis)
- Williams v. United States, 558 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding §924(c) minimum did not apply where a longer drug mandatory minimum governed; later abrogated by Abbott)
- Currie v. United States, 739 F.3d 960 (7th Cir. 2014) (statutory minima/maxima have anchoring effect on reasonable sentence)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (post-sentencing rehabilitation may be considered at resentencing)