Lee v. United States

Background

Delroy Lee moved for plenary resentencing—a new sentencing proceeding covering the sentence as a whole—or, alternatively, compassionate release. The Government opposed the motion, and Lee filed a reply and supplemental letters.

Lee was charged in fifteen counts arising from the alleged activities of the DeKalb Avenue Crew. The charges included racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, drug conspiracy, drug-related murder, murder in aid of racketeering, robbery-related offenses, firearm offenses, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. After a nearly 20-day trial, a jury convicted Lee on all counts. On March 25, 2011, the court sentenced him to life imprisonment plus 30 years. The sentence included mandatory life terms on two counts involving murder in aid of racketeering, along with other concurrent and consecutive terms.

In a prior post-conviction proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court vacated Lee’s convictions on Counts 24 and 25 in light of a Supreme Court decision, but otherwise denied his claims. The court therefore considered the present motion against the thirteen remaining convictions.

Request for de novo resentencing

The court explained that a new sentencing hearing is discretionary after a sentence has been vacated in part and need not be held when it would be an “empty formality” or merely ministerial. Lee’s remaining convictions still carried six concurrent life terms, five concurrent 20-year terms, and consecutive five-year and 25-year terms. Because a new hearing would still leave Lee with a life sentence and additional imprisonment, the court denied the request for de novo resentencing.

The court also rejected Lee’s argument that a new sentencing would give him a “fresh slate” if the law later changed. The court found that argument speculative and unsupported.

First Step Act request

The First Step Act permits a court, in certain circumstances, to impose a reduced sentence for a “covered offense,” meaning an offense whose statutory penalties were changed by specified provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act and that was committed before August 3, 2010.

The parties agreed that Lee’s racketeering and racketeering-conspiracy convictions in Counts 1 and 2 were covered offenses. They disagreed about Count 7, the drug-related murder conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). The court held that Count 7 was not a covered offense because controlling appellate precedent held that the First Step Act did not eliminate criminal liability under that statute.

The court further explained that even when an offense is covered, a sentence reduction is discretionary. It declined to reduce Lee’s life sentence because of the extreme seriousness of his conduct, including his involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Patrick Taylor and the murder of Bunny Campbell. The court also stated that Lee still merited life imprisonment under the racketeering statute and that two of his convictions carried mandatory life sentences. The court therefore declined to reduce the sentence under the First Step Act.

Compassionate-release request

Compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires a defendant to satisfy several conditions, including administrative exhaustion, extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction, consistency with applicable Sentencing Commission policy statements, and support from the applicable sentencing factors. The court stated that the defendant bears the burden of proving entitlement to relief.

The court rejected Lee’s argument that his sentence was unusually long and created a gross disparity with the sentence he would receive today. Although the sentence was lengthy, the court found that it resulted from mandatory statutory requirements. It also found no disparity because Lee would still receive mandatory life sentences for the two murder-in-aid-of-racketeering convictions if sentenced today.

The court found that Lee had not shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances. It acknowledged his rehabilitation efforts but found them insufficient, particularly in light of approximately a dozen disciplinary infractions, including some as recently as 2022. The court also rejected arguments based on possible changes in prosecutorial charging practices and plea offers as speculative.

Finally, the court determined that the sentencing factors did not support release. It emphasized the seriousness of Lee’s multi-year conduct involving drug trafficking, armed robberies, and murders; the need for punishment; and the need to protect the public. The court rejected Lee’s comparison to other defendants because those defendants had either pleaded guilty to different charges or had been acquitted of murder. It found the case more comparable to that of Lee’s brother and co-defendant, whose compassionate-release motion had also been denied.

Disposition

The court denied Lee’s motion for plenary resentencing or, alternatively, compassionate release. The opinion does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.