Tingman v. United States
- Sidney Stein
- 7:18-cv-02566-SHS
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Tingman v. United States, Judge Stein denied Marion Tingman’s sentence-reduction motion and request for appointed counsel, finding his arguments meritless.
The ruling affected Marion Tingman, the federal defendant seeking a sentence reduction and appointed counsel. It left in place his 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.
What happened
In Tingman v. United States, Marion Tingman asked the court to reduce his sentence after his convictions for leading a drug conspiracy and possessing a firearm during that conspiracy. He was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison.
Tingman argued that later changes to crack-cocaine sentencing rules reduced his sentence, that a Supreme Court decision invalidated the firearm basis for his sentence, and that the facts increasing his sentence were not properly decided by a jury. He also relied on his claimed rehabilitation after sentencing.
Judge Sidney H. Stein denied the sentence-reduction motion, concluding that the later sentencing law did not apply to Tingman’s sentence, the jury had found the required drug quantity and firearm facts, and the other arguments did not apply. The judge also denied Tingman’s request for appointed counsel.
The detailed version
- Tingman v. United States · No. 7:18-cv-02566-SHS
- Sidney Stein
- May 22, 2023
Background
Marion Tingman was convicted at trial in July 2013 of two offenses: conspiring to distribute powder cocaine and at least 280 grams of crack cocaine, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a narcotics conspiracy. The court sentenced him in May 2014 to mandatory minimum terms totaling 15 years: 10 years for the drug-conspiracy count and a consecutive 5 years for the firearm count.
The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction in 2016. Tingman later filed a motion under a federal law allowing a court to vacate a sentence, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel; this Court denied that motion in June 2019. He then moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The opinion notes that it was unclear whether he had completed the required administrative process, but the court considered the motion because that requirement could be waived or forfeited and the government had not raised it.
Tingman’s arguments
Tingman argued that the 2018 First Step Act made the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act’s crack-cocaine sentencing changes apply to him retroactively. He contended that he had not been found responsible for at least 280 grams of crack cocaine and therefore should not have received the 10-year mandatory minimum.
He also argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States eliminated the basis for his firearm enhancement. In addition, he argued that facts increasing a sentence must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and that aiding and abetting could no longer support a firearm enhancement. Finally, he relied on post-sentencing rehabilitation.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the First Step Act did not affect Tingman’s sentence because his 2013 trial and 2014 sentencing occurred after the Fair Sentencing Act had already taken effect. The jury had found beyond a reasonable doubt that Tingman was personally involved in, or that it was reasonably foreseeable to him that the conspiracy involved, 280 grams or more of crack cocaine. The court also had found at sentencing that he was responsible for at least 8.4 kilograms of crack cocaine. Either amount was enough to trigger the 10-year minimum.
The court rejected the argument based on Johnson, explaining that Tingman’s shotgun conviction was based on possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), not on the violent-felony provision addressed in Johnson. The court found the aiding-and-abetting argument irrelevant because Tingman had not been convicted under that theory. It also concluded that the jury, rather than the sentencing court alone, had decided the drug-quantity and firearm facts that increased the mandatory minimum, distinguishing the Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States.
To grant a sentence reduction, the court was required to find extraordinary and compelling reasons, determine that the federal sentencing factors favored reduction, and ensure that the reduction was consistent with applicable sentencing policies. The court concluded that Tingman had not met that burden. It also found that his claimed post-sentencing rehabilitation did not support early release because he had provided no evidence of substantial rehabilitation.
Disposition
The court denied Tingman’s motion for a reduction in sentence. The court also denied his motion for appointment of counsel because the record made clear that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.