Brito v. United States

Background

A jury found Jose Aramis Brito guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. The court sentenced him principally to 144 months in prison. Brito previously sought to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but the court denied that motion. The court also denied later requests for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and Rule 60(b)(6).

First Step Act request

Brito’s current application sought relief under Section 404 of the First Step Act. That provision allows relief for certain offenses whose statutory penalties were changed by Sections 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. The court held that the relevant changes applied to cocaine base, commonly called crack cocaine, and to simple possession offenses. They did not change the penalties for powdered cocaine. Because Brito’s conviction involved conspiring to distribute or possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine, rather than cocaine base, the court held that the First Step Act did not apply.

Holloway Doctrine request and ruling

Brito also referred to the “Holloway Doctrine,” which the court understood as referring to a prior district court decision involving the government’s agreement to vacate certain convictions arising from the stacking of sentences for multiple firearm convictions. The court found Brito’s case substantially different from that case. It stated that, even assuming it had the same discretion used there, it would not exercise that discretion on the record before it. Judge P. Castel denied the application. The court also stated that it made no finding under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) because the action was not filed without payment of the filing fee.