Pierce v. United States

Background

Earl Pierce was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses connected to the Courtland Avenue Crew, including racketeering offenses, murder-related offenses, a drug-distribution conspiracy, and two firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The late Judge Pauley initially sentenced him to 600 months in prison in 2013. After a remand for resentencing, Pierce received a 540-month sentence in 2017.

Pierce filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a person in federal custody to challenge a conviction or sentence on specified legal grounds. He argued that his trial and appellate lawyers had provided ineffective assistance and that his § 924(c) conviction on Count Twenty-Four was invalid because the underlying attempted-murder offense was not a qualifying “crime of violence.” Separately, Pierce sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) based on extraordinary and compelling reasons.

Ruling on the § 2255 Motion

The court denied Pierce’s § 2255 motion. Applying controlling Second Circuit precedent, the court held that attempted murder under New York law qualified as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s elements clause. The court therefore rejected Pierce’s challenge to the firearm conviction and did not need to address the government’s alternative arguments.

The court also concluded that Pierce’s ineffective-assistance claims had been withdrawn or abandoned based on his counsel’s response to the court’s inquiry. Nevertheless, the court addressed the claims alternatively. It ruled that counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge the indictment because the indictment adequately alleged open-ended racketeering activity and sufficiently incorporated the alleged predicate acts into the relevant counts. The court also rejected Pierce’s arguments concerning the indictment’s connection between the firearm and the predicate offense.

The court found that Pierce’s counsel had sought the requested jury instruction concerning drug quantity and that the jury had been correctly instructed that drug quantity had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also rejected the challenge concerning the § 924(c) jury instruction, concluding that the unsettled state of the law at the time of trial prevented Pierce from showing constitutionally ineffective assistance or prejudice.

Ruling on the Sentence-Reduction Motion

The court found that Pierce satisfied the statutory requirement to first seek relief from the Bureau of Prisons. It concluded that extraordinary and compelling reasons existed because the First Step Act changed the law governing when enhanced consecutive sentences for multiple § 924(c) convictions could be imposed. Under the court’s calculation, Pierce would receive 15 years for the two firearm counts if sentenced under the current law, rather than the 30 years imposed on those counts under the law applicable at the time of his sentencing.

The court rejected the government’s argument that the Sentencing Commission lacked authority to recognize a nonretroactive change in law as part of an extraordinary-and-compelling-reasons analysis. It also considered the sentencing factors required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including the seriousness of Pierce’s conduct, his involvement in murder-related violence and drug distribution, his age and education, his prison coursework and work, and his disciplinary history.

The court concluded that the factors did not support releasing Pierce after the roughly 155 months he had served, but did support a substantial reduction. It granted the sentence-reduction motion and reduced the prison term from 540 months to 360 months. The other terms and conditions of the original judgment, including 60 months of supervised release, remained in place.