Brito v. United States

Background

Enrique Brito filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which allows a person in federal custody to challenge a federal conviction or sentence on limited constitutional, jurisdictional, or fundamental-error grounds. He also filed a separate motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) seeking a sentence reduction based on extraordinary and compelling reasons.

Brito had pleaded guilty to participating in a racketeering enterprise, charged in Count One, and to using, carrying, and discharging a handgun during and in relation to a crime of violence, charged in Count Twenty-Six. The charges arose from a July 2011 incident in which Brito and others fired at rival gang members while attempting to murder them, but hit an innocent bystander. Brito was 17 years and 11 months old at the time. He received a total sentence of 270 months: 150 months on Count One and a consecutive 120 months on Count Twenty-Six.

Section 2255 motion

Brito argued that the attempted-murder conduct alleged as a racketeering act did not qualify as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A). His original filing also relied on Johnson v. United States and argued that the statute’s separate residual provision was unconstitutionally vague. His later filing, submitted through counsel, focused mainly on whether attempted murder under New York law qualified as a crime of violence.

The court applied the modified categorical approach, a method used when a statute lists alternative ways of committing an offense, and relied on the Second Circuit’s controlling decision in Pastore II. That decision held that attempted murder under the relevant New York provisions constitutes a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 924(c)(3)(A). Because Brito’s conviction was based on the same qualifying offense, the court held that his conviction rested on a crime of violence. The court stated that it did not need to reach the government’s alternative arguments and denied Brito’s § 2255 motion.

Motion for sentence reduction

The court found that Brito satisfied the statutory exhaustion requirement because he had asked the facility warden for a reduction, the request had been denied, and he filed his court motion more than 30 days after that denial.

Brito relied primarily on his age at the time of the offense, limited mental capacity, mental illness, and extremely difficult upbringing. The court considered evidence that he had joined a criminal group at age 13, had an IQ of 74 with language deficiencies, had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and had a chaotic and unsupervised upbringing. The court also considered later developments, including Brito’s GED, participation in programs addressing drug use and dependency, lack of recent disciplinary violations, and statements indicating greater insight into his conduct.

The court concluded that Brito’s youth, upbringing, low IQ, mental illness, and the need for additional consideration of the circumstances of juvenile offenders, taken together, amounted to extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction. It then considered the sentencing factors concerning the seriousness of the offense, public protection, punishment, deterrence, and Brito’s changed circumstances. Although the seriousness of the racketeering, attempted murder, firearm use, and drug-distribution conduct weighed against a reduction, the court concluded that the overall balance favored one.

The court rejected Brito’s request for release to time served. It instead granted the sentence-reduction motion and reduced the stated prison term from 270 months to 202 months. All other terms and conditions of the original judgment, including four years of supervised release, remained in place. The court directed the clerk to terminate the relevant criminal-case motions and close the civil case.

Judge

Judge Castel signed the opinion and order on April 12, 2024.