Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. McKeever

United States District Court, District of Columbia

June 26, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RANDY McKEEVER, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Presently before the Court is Defendant Randy McKeever's [42] Letter Regarding Detainer Placed on Defendant, which the Defendant was granted leave to file. See 12/16/2016 Letter [42] at 1 (noting that leave to file was granted on 12/20/2016). The Defendant, who is proceeding pro se, requests this Court to reduce his sentence by permitting his 18-month term of imprisonment to run concurrently, rather than consecutively, with his Maryland state sentence. Upon a review of the parties' submissions, [1] the relevant authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court finds that the Defendant is not entitled to the requested relief, and the Court shall DENY the relief requested in the Defendant's [42] Letter.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Procedural History

         On December 5, 2000, Defendant Randy McKeever (“Defendant” or “Mr. McKeever”) pled guilty to one count of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm or Ammunition by a Convicted Felon. The Court sentenced Mr. McKeever on June 21, 2001, to 12 months imprisonment, with the term to run concurrent with Defendant's imprisonment under any previous state or federal sentence, followed by three years of supervised release. See 6/21/2001 Minute Order. While the Defendant was on his supervised release, he was charged with and convicted of voluntary manslaughter and a firearm count in Maryland, and he was sentenced to a thirty-year term of imprisonment, which he is currently serving. On June 17, 2008, Magistrate Judge John Facciola held a revocation hearing on Defendant's violation of his supervised release, where Defendant conceded the violation and acknowledged that his Maryland conviction constituted a Grade A violation. See 6/13/2008 Minute Order; Govt.'s Opp'n, Ex. A (Magistrate Judge Facciola's 6/17/2008 Report and Recommendation [40]) at 1. Magistrate Judge Facciola noted that the recommended Guidelines range for the Defendant was 18 to 24 months, but he recommended that Mr. McKeever be sentenced to 18 months, and he rejected Defendant's request that such sentence be concurrent with the Maryland sentence. Ex. A [40] at 1.

         This Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on June 26, 2008. Defendant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment relating to his violation of supervised release, and such sentence was to run consecutively with the Maryland sentence. See 6/26/2008 Minute Entry. At the time the Defendant was sentenced, the Court acknowledged that the new sentence could “result in some detainer” while Defendant was serving his Maryland sentence. See Govt.'s Opp'n, Ex. B (June 26, 2008 sentencing transcript) [47] at 18. The Court elected however to impose a consecutive sentence on grounds that “there should be a sentence that [Mr. McKeever] actually serves that relates to this case.” Ex. B [47] at 8. The Court's [41] July 15, 2008 Judgment and Commitment Order revoked the Defendant's supervised release and sentenced Mr. McKeever to “[e]ighteen (18) months to be served consecutively to any sentence that the defendant is then serving.” See Govt.'s Opp'n, Ex. C (7/15/2008 Judgment and Commitment Order) [41].

         On December 20, 2016, this Court granted Defendant leave to file the instant Letter, in which Mr. McKeever requests that his 18-month sentence following the revocation of his supervised release be changed to run concurrently, instead of consecutively, with the sentence he is serving in Maryland. The Government filed a Response to the Defendant's Letter on February 17, 2017.

         B. Defendant's Request for a Sentence Reduction

         Defendant requests that the sentence imposed for his violation of supervised release, which was set by this Court, be modified so that it runs concurrently, instead of consecutively, with his Maryland sentence. Defendant has served about 11 years of his 30-year term, and he contends that his consecutive sentence acts as a detainer, which prevents him from participating in certain rehabilitative activities offered through the Department of Corrections. Defendant asserts that “a sentence may be modified or corrected on review, or the sentencing courts may run a consecutive sentence concurrently after the final sentence is imposed.”[2] Def.'s Letter at 1. Mr. McKeever's Letter requesting a change in his sentence may be construed as a motion requesting a sentence modification under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). See generally United States v. Ingram, 908 F.Supp.2d 1, at *6 (D.D.C. 2012) (construing one of the defendant's requests for relief as a motion made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). “The Court is not bound by a pro se litigant's characterization of his cause of action [but] [r]ather, a court must determine the proper characterization of a filing by the nature of the relief sought.” Williams v. Gonzalez, 567 F.Supp.2d 148, 149 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing McLean v. United States, 2006 WL 543999, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 3, 2006)). Accordingly, the Court will treat the Defendant's [42] Letter (“Def.'s Mot.”) as a motion to be analyzed in the context of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).[3]

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, which addresses modification of a term of imprisonment:

The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that - -
(1) in any case - -
(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, may reduce the term of imprisonment . . ., after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.