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. Simpson

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington

November 5, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT LEWIS SIMPSON, III, and TAYLOR DAWNE MITCHUSON, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Danny C. Reeves United States District Judge

         I. Introduction

         Defendant Marion Leaves Brown, III, faced a lengthy sentence after entering a guilty plea on July 28, 2017. Brown had sold a combination of heroin and fentanyl to a woman approximately four months earlier, which resulted in her overdosing on the substances. Brown's then-girlfriend, Defendant Taylor Dawne Mitchuson, assisted Brown in a subsequent sale to an individual cooperating with police in the investigation of Brown's drug distribution activities. However, she was not charged in his subsequent indictment.[1]

         Several days later, Brown hatched a scheme to escape from the Grayson County Detention Center before his federal sentencing hearing which had been set for November 17, 2017. Brown enlisted Taylor and two others, Defendants Robert Lewis Simpson and Destini Samantha Chadwell, to assist in the escape. Taylor was used to coordinate the purchase of supplies for the break-out. Simpson and his girlfriend, Destini Chadwell, then attempted to assist Brown in his escape from outside the detention center. The plan failed. Brown, Mitchuson, Simpson and Chadwell were later indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy to escape from federal custody). With the exception of Brown, the remaining defendants entered guilty pleas and testified as government witnesses during Brown's trial which was held on August 15, 2018.

         Both Simpson and Mitchuson have objected to the guideline calculations contained in their respective PSRs based on the Probation Officer's the failure to include recommended reductions for their respective roles in the offense. Mitchuson claims that she is entitled to receive either a four- or two-level reduction as a minimal or minor participant under Section 3B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 3B1.2 (Nov. 2018). Simpson asserts that he should receive a two-level adjustment as a minor participant.

         Mitchuson will be granted partial relief (i.e., a two-level reduction) based on her role in the offense. However, the Court cannot conclude that Simpson is entitled to a role reduction. His objection, therefore, will be denied.

         II. USSG § 3B1.2

          The United States Sentencing Commission's 2018 Guidelines Manual is applicable to Mitchuson's and Simpson's sentencing proceeding and to their objections to their respective guideline calculations. See USSG § 1B1.11, p.s. (The Court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced unless such application would violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution.) While both defendants begin with a Base Offense Level 13 in calculating their respective guideline ranges, the probation officer responsible for preparation of the PSRs does not assign to either defendant an adjustment for his or her role in the offense.

         Section 3B1.2 (Mitigating Role) applies to downward role adjustments. It simply states:

         Based on the defendant's role in the offense, decrease the offense level as follows:

(a) If the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal activity, decrease by 4 levels.
(b) If the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal activity, decrease by 2 levels.

         In cases falling between (a) and (b), decrease by 3 levels.

         The application notes to this section of the guidelines provide useful definitions and instructions in determining who is entitled to a mitigating role adjustment and the extent of any adjustment. First, the defendant seeking the adjustment must be “substantially less culpable than the average ...


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.