Musa v. United States

Background

Jawad Amir Musa was convicted by a jury in 1991 of conspiring to possess one kilogram or more of heroin with intent to distribute. Because the government filed a notice based on two prior state-court drug convictions, the mandatory minimum sentence increased to life imprisonment. Judge Patterson imposed that sentence in 1993, and Musa’s direct appeal and original collateral challenge were unsuccessful.

Musa filed three requests for relief. With counsel, he sought compassionate release under the First Step Act, arguing that his life sentence was unfairly long in light of later sentencing reforms, his rehabilitation, the use of the prior-conviction enhancement, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceeding without counsel, he sought to reopen his earlier sentence challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), relying mainly on the decision in a prior related proceeding. He also filed a new sentence challenge arguing that the government violated due process and equal protection by disproportionately using the enhancement against Black offenders, relying on a 2018 Sentencing Commission report.

Compassionate Release

The court held that it had authority to identify extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release, even though the Sentencing Guidelines’ policy statement assigned the Bureau of Prisons authority over a catchall category. The court relied on intervening Second Circuit precedent and noted that the government had abandoned its contrary argument.

The court nevertheless denied compassionate release. It concluded that the First Step Act’s reduction of the applicable mandatory minimum from life to 25 years supported consideration of Musa’s request, but that the change was not retroactive and did not, by itself, require release. The court found that Musa had not shown the additional individualized circumstances needed for discretionary relief. It considered his more than 60 prison disciplinary infractions between 1991 and 2015, his selective acceptance of responsibility, and questions concerning a letter that Musa submitted as support from a former prison captain. The court also found that Musa had not shown a COVID-19 risk sufficient to justify release.

The court denied Musa’s current compassionate-release application without prejudice to a future request if he continued his recent improvement in prison behavior or if the Sentencing Commission issued favorable guideline amendments. It stated that the authenticity of the letter could be relevant to a future request.

Motion to Reopen Earlier Sentence Challenge

The court denied Musa’s motion to reopen his original collateral challenge. It held that the motion attacked the underlying sentence rather than the integrity of the earlier proceeding, making it beyond the proper scope of Rule 60(b) and effectively a successive sentence challenge. The court also concluded that the decision Musa relied on was not binding and did not require reopening. In addition, the government had declined to dismiss any of Musa’s convictions, which the court found independently defeated the requested relief.

New Sentence Challenge

The court held that Musa’s new petition was successive because the factual basis for his racial-disparity claim existed when he filed his earlier petition, even if the supporting information was not then readily available. Under the federal statute governing successive sentence challenges, Musa needed authorization from the Court of Appeals before proceeding in the district court.

The court therefore transferred the new petition and Musa’s request for appointed counsel to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court noted that, if the Second Circuit authorized the petition, Musa could seek to reopen the newer district-court proceeding. The district court did not grant authorization or decide the new petition’s merits.

Disposition

Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied Musa’s motion for compassionate release without prejudice and denied his motion to reopen the original sentence challenge. The court transferred Musa’s new successive petition and related request for counsel to the Second Circuit. The order did not alter Musa’s life sentence.