413 F.Supp.3d 15
D.D.C.2019Background
- Defendants Antone White, Eric Hicks, and Ronald Hughes were leaders/members of the “First Street Crew,” convicted in 1994 of a crack-cocaine conspiracy (Count 1), RICO conspiracy (Count 5, for White and Hicks), and multiple distribution counts; White and Hughes were found to have murdered a cooperating witness.
- At sentencing Judge Greene attributed large judicially‑found drug quantities (conspiracy: ~21.87 kg crack attributed to the conspiracy; Hughes assigned ~10.94 kg pro rata) and applied guideline enhancements (weapons, leadership, obstruction), producing life sentences for all three.
- The Fair Sentencing Act (FSA) (2010) raised the crack thresholds (5→28 g; 50→280 g). Section 404 of the First Step Act (2018) makes FSA’s Sections 2–3 retroactive for eligible defendants and authorizes courts to "impose a reduced sentence as if" FSA were in effect.
- Defendants moved under Section 404 for reductions to time‑served (White and Hicks) or shorter supervised release (Hughes). The government argued defendants were ineligible because judicial drug‑quantity findings at original sentencing meant FSA would not change their statutory ranges.
- The court held defendants are eligible under Section 404 (the statute looks to whether the statute of conviction was modified, not to the specific judicial quantity finding), but Section 404 relief is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B), is discretionary, does not authorize plenary resentencing, and Apprendi/Alleyne do not apply to bar consideration of judge‑found quantities in this limited § 404 proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of "covered offense" under §404(a) — who is eligible | White/Hicks/Hughes: eligibility should be tied to the statute of conviction (i.e., FSA-modified statutes) so they are eligible | Government: eligibility requires that the defendant’s actual offense quantity would change statutory exposure under FSA (i.e., a quantity-driven test) | Court: Eligibility is determined by whether the statutory penalties for the statute of conviction were modified by FSA (statute-focused); defendants are eligible. |
| Whether §404 proceedings are freestanding or governed by §3582(c) | Defendants: §404 creates a freestanding resentencing right; plaintiffs seek plenary resentencing and presence | Government: §404 relief operates through §3582(c)(1)(B); no plenary resentencing | Court: §404 motions are governed by §3582(c)(1)(B); relief is circumscribed and plenary resentencing is not authorized; Rule 43 presence not required. |
| Applicability of Apprendi/Alleyne to §404 proceedings (i.e., must jury find drug quantities to change statutory range) | Defendants: judicially found quantities cannot be used to determine current statutory range; Apprendi/Alleyne require jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt | Government: Apprendi/Alleyne do not apply in §404 proceedings; court may rely on judge‑found quantities | Court: Apprendi/Alleyne do not apply because (1) §404 can only maintain or reduce statutory exposure (not increase it), (2) relief is discretionary, and (3) Apprendi/Alleyne are not retroactive to reopen prior sentences in this forum. |
| Whether relief should be granted on the facts (availability and §3553(a) considerations) | Defendants: seek reduced sentence/time served (White and Hicks) or shorter supervised release (Hughes) | Government: Even if eligible, relief is inappropriate given serious violent conduct, murders, obstruction, disciplinary history | Court: Only Hicks’ Count 11 (5.426 g) is reducible under FSA to §841(b)(1)(C); court reduces Count 11 to time‑served. All other relief denied after discretionary consideration of §404 and §3553(a) factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. White, 116 F.3d 903 (D.C. Cir.) (describing defendants’ First Street Crew convictions and trial record)
- Dorsey v. United States, 567 U.S. 260 (Supreme Court) (explaining FSA’s change to crack thresholds and retroactivity limits)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court) (holding facts that increase penalty must be found by jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (Supreme Court) (extending Apprendi to mandatory minimum increases)
- Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (Supreme Court) (limiting §3582(c)(2) modifications; not a plenary resentencing)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court) (holding advisory guideline framework avoids Sixth Amendment problems)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (Supreme Court) (rule retroactivity analysis distinguishing watershed rules)
- Fincher v. United States, 929 F.3d 501 (7th Cir.) (holding Alleyne does not bar judicial factfinding for safety‑valve eligibility)