McLean v. United States

Background

Lenroy McLean was convicted after a jury trial of participating in a conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine. The court sentenced him to 228 months in prison and ordered forfeiture of $6 million in narcotics proceeds. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. He later pursued several challenges, including an earlier petition attacking his conviction and a later successive petition concerning wiretap affidavits. Those proceedings were denied or dismissed, and the appeals were dismissed.

The order addressed several pending requests in both the criminal case, No. 08-cr-789-7 (RJS), and the related civil case, No. 12-cv-1954 (RJS). McLean represented himself for some of the requests. The court had appointed counsel to assist with compassionate release, and McLean also submitted his own compassionate-release motion.

Requests for documents and subpoenas

McLean asked the court to help him obtain pen-register and trap-and-trace warrants from his criminal case. He also requested subpoenas but did not identify the people or entities to be subpoenaed, or the information sought. The court treated these requests as requests for discovery under the rules governing challenges to federal convictions.

The court denied both requests. It first noted that McLean had no pending challenge to his conviction for which this discovery could be sought. It also ruled that, even if such a proceeding were pending, McLean had not shown good cause. He did not provide specific allegations explaining how the requested records would support a particular claim, and the court viewed the requests as an improper search for possible grounds to challenge his conviction.

Rule 60 request

McLean moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) to reopen his earlier challenge to his conviction. He argued that he was attacking a defect in the earlier proceeding rather than attacking his conviction. The court concluded that the substance of his arguments concerned alleged defects in the criminal case, including the integrity of a wiretap and the performance of trial counsel.

The court therefore treated the motion as a successive challenge to the conviction in disguise. It denied the motion as beyond the scope of Rule 60(b) and, alternatively, as without merit. The court explained that McLean had not raised these arguments in the earlier proceeding and had not identified newly discovered evidence that would support relief under Rule 60.

Compassionate release

McLean sought a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. He relied on his medical conditions, the COVID-19 pandemic, his age, the portion of his sentence already served, prison conditions, rehabilitation, and his proposed release plan.

The court assumed, without deciding, that these circumstances could qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons. It nevertheless denied compassionate release because the sentencing factors favored continued incarceration. The court emphasized the large-scale cocaine conspiracy, McLean’s lack of remorse, the use of firearms in the operation, his prior violent offense and criminal history, the need for deterrence and public protection, and the fact that his original sentence was already below the applicable sentencing-guidelines range. The court also considered his medical conditions and found that they were generally monitored and controlled in custody.

Law-library access and communication with counsel

McLean requested additional law-library access and an order requiring the prison to facilitate communication with his appointed counsel. The court had already directed the government to ensure appropriate access to legal resources and communication, and it had granted extensions when communication problems affected the briefing.

The court denied these requests as moot, without prejudice to McLean’s renewing them if additional complications arose.

Surveillance and sealing requests

McLean moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3504 for an order requiring the government to admit or deny whether it had used unlawful surveillance, including warrantless electronic surveillance or real-time cell-site information. He also asked that the motion be filed or maintained under seal.

The court denied the surveillance motion. It stated that the request appeared untimely and that McLean had not provided a colorable basis—a plausible factual basis—for believing that the government had engaged in illegal surveillance. The court also denied the request to seal because McLean had not overcome the normal presumption that judicial records are publicly accessible.

Other dispositions

The court denied as moot McLean’s request to lift a stay because the court had never granted a stay concerning the Rule 60 motion. In its final disposition, the court denied the letter request, subpoena request, Rule 60(b)(4) motion, compassionate-release motion, surveillance motion, and sealing request. It denied as moot the stay request and the requests for increased law-library access and improved communication with counsel.

The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability for the Rule 60 ruling because McLean had not made the required showing that a constitutional right had been denied. It also certified that an appeal from that portion of the order would not be taken in good faith, so McLean could not proceed without paying the filing fee for that appeal.