Thomas v. United States

Background

Isaiah Thomas pleaded guilty and was convicted of attempted murder and assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering, along with two firearm offenses. On June 3, 2024, the court sentenced him to 72 months on the first count, followed by 60 months on each firearm count, for a total sentence of 192 months. The sentence was below the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines range of 330 to 382 months. Thomas’s direct appeal from the judgment was pending when he filed these motions.

Thomas proceeded without counsel. He filed one motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) seeking a sentence reduction and another under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to vacate his sentence.

Sentence-reduction motion

The court denied the motion under Section 3582(c). The court first noted that Thomas’s other motion suggested he might not have exhausted the required administrative remedies. Even assuming that he had exhausted those remedies, the court found that his motion failed on the merits.

Thomas argued that his sentence improperly used “stacking” for his two firearm convictions. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the consecutive sentences were based on separate acts of violence and did not rely on the amended stacking provision he identified. Thomas also pointed to his rehabilitation, including GED classes and an addiction program. The court found those efforts commendable but insufficient to meet Section 3582’s requirement of extraordinary and compelling reasons.

The court also held that a sentence reduction would not be consistent with the sentencing factors required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court had recently considered those factors at sentencing and had emphasized the seriousness of Thomas’s crimes, his use of violence, the extent of his robberies and larcenies, his coaching of others to commit similar conduct while incarcerated, and his serious disciplinary violations. The court therefore denied the Section 3582 motion.

Section 2255 motion

The court dismissed Thomas’s Section 2255 motion as premature. It explained that the pending direct appeal was not technically a jurisdictional bar, meaning it did not deprive the district court of authority to consider the motion. However, courts commonly refrain from deciding a Section 2255 motion while a direct appeal is pending because the appeal might resolve issues that would make the district court’s work unnecessary.

The dismissal permits Thomas to refile the motion without approval from the Court of Appeals after the direct appeal is resolved, unless the appeal makes the motion unnecessary. The court did not decide the merits of Thomas’s Section 2255 claims.

Additional rulings and disposition

The court denied a certificate of appealability because Thomas had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the listed docket entries, close the civil case, and mail Thomas a copy of the opinion and order.

The Section 3582 motion was DENIED. The Section 2255 motion was DISMISSED as premature.