Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Warren

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

July 12, 2019

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Therase Leshown Warren, Defendant.

          ORDER

          DONOVAN W. FRANK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Therase Leshown Warren's motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(B) and § 404 of the First Step Act (“FSA”). (Doc. No. 106.)

         The Court has been informed that according to the Bureau of Prisons, Defendant's anticipated release date is January 21, 2020. The Defendant's release date will soon be changed to approximately September 2019, given good conduct credits pursuant to FSA § 402, which creates an additional seven days of good conduct credit for every year of his sentence. Consequently, for Defendant's 240-month sentence, this could add approximately 140 days of good conduct credit and change his post-FSA § 402 anticipated release date to September 2019 as noted. That determination is made by the Bureau of Prisons. In its response, the United States does not oppose the Court reducing the Defendant's sentence to time served and recommends a supervised release term of eight years, which is the statutory minimum and at least four months in a residential reentry center to assist the Defendant in making a transition back into society consistent with similarly situated defendants. For the reasons that the Court discusses below, the Court will reduce the Defendant's sentence to time served and place him on eight years of supervised release subject to up to four months in a residential reentry center as a condition of supervised release.[1]

         BACKGROUND

         In August 2002, the Defendant was charged by indictment with one count of distributing 50 grams of crack cocaine in late June 2002 and one count of distributing 244 grams of crack in July 2002. Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) ¶ 1. A § 851 information was filed in September 2002, which enhanced the potential sentence on each count from ten years to life imprisonment to 20 years to life. (Doc. No. 25.)

         A three-day jury trial was held for the Defendant in November 2002. The Defendant was convicted of the 244 gram crack offense in count 2, but acquitted of the 50 gram offense in count 1. (Docket No. 45.)

         The Court sentenced the Defendant in April 2003. It found Defendant's guideline range of imprisonment was 360 months to life, his guideline sentence of supervised release was ten years, and his guideline fine range was $20, 000 to $8, 000, 000. As observed by the Government in their submissions, the Court found Defendant's criminal history was overstated and departed downward pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. The Court declined to treat the Defendant as a career offender, using a total offense level 34 and a criminal history category V for a range of 240 to 293 months. PSR 18, 26; 4-4-03, Statement of Reasons at 2.

         The Court sentenced the Defendant to the statutory minimum term of imprisonment of 20 years, and the statutory minimum term of supervised release of ten years. (Doc. No. 52.) As observed by the Government, the Court stated it would not have sentenced the Defendant to less than 240 months, even if the § 851 enhancement had not been filed. The Court's sentence was upheld on appeal. (Doc. No. 59.)

         In April 2005, the Defendant filed a § 2255 motion raising seven claims. The Court denied Defendant's motion. (Doc. No. 69.) This Court and the Eighth Circuit denied Defendant's request for a certificate of appealability. (Doc. Nos. 75, 80, 83.)

         Then, in January 2006, Defendant sought permission from the Eighth Circuit to file a successive § 2255 motion. The § 2255(h) request was denied.

         In October 2009, the Defendant filed a sentence reduction motion based on 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and the 2007 retroactive guideline reductions for crack offenses. (Doc. No. 93.) The Court denied Defendant's motion because Defendant's sentence was already at the statutory minimum. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the Court's ruling. (Doc. No. 99.)

         In September 2013, the Defendant filed another motion for a § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction, based upon the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and presumably, the 2011 retroactive amendments to the crack guidelines. (Doc. Nos. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.