UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 10-cr-047-JD Opinion No. 2020 DNH 191 Luckenson Dorceant
O R D E R
Luckenson Dorceant moves, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A), to have his sentence reduced to time served
based on the combined effect of his medical conditions and the
risks presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.1 The government
objects to the requested relief. United States Probation and
Pretrial Services has filed a report and recommendation.
Counsel on Dorceant’s behalf requested a hearing on the
motions. Under the local rules of this district, motions are
decided without oral argument unless a party provides a written
statement “outlining the reasons why oral argument may provide
assistance to the court.” LR 7.1(d). No such statement was
provided here. Therefore, no hearing was held.
1 Dorceant filed a motion pro se, and then counsel was appointed to represent him, for purposes of seeking relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A), and counsel filed a supplemental motion. Although Dorceant reversed his name to “Dorceant Luckenson” in his motion, his appointed counsel uses the name Luckenson Dorceant, which is the name used during the criminal proceedings. The court, therefore, will use Luckenson Dorceant. Standard of Review
The Director of the BOP may bring a motion on behalf of a
defendant to reduce the term of the defendant’s imprisonment.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). If the Director does not file such a motion on
behalf of a defendant, the defendant may file a motion on his or
her own behalf in certain circumstances. The defendant must
have “fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a
failure of the BOP to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf”
or, thirty days must have passed since the warden at the
defendant’s facility received the defendant’s request without a
response. Id.
When a defendant has satisfied the administrative
exhaustion requirement, the court may reduce a term of
imprisonment based on a finding that “extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and “after
considering the factors provided in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the
extent that they are applicable.” § 3582(c)(1)(A). The statute
also directs consideration of whether the requested “reduction
is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(1)(A).
The applicable policy statement is United States Sentencing
Guidelines § 1B1.13. That guidance provides that a defendant’s
term of imprisonment may be reduced if extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant the reduction or the defendant meets
2 the age and time-served requirements and the defendant is not “a
danger to the safety of any other person or to the community” and
the reduction is consistent with the policy statement. See United
States v. Jones, 2020 WL 6205783, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 22, 2020).
Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 provides additional
guidance as to when an extraordinary and compelling reason to
reduce a defendant’s sentence may exist. Those reasons include
medical conditions, age, family circumstances, and extraordinary
and compelling reasons “other than, or in combination with, the
reasons described.” BOP Program Statement 5050.50 also provides
guidance as to when post-sentencing developments, medical
conditions, age, and family circumstances support a motion for
sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Program Statement No.
5050.50, Compassionate Release/Reduction in Sentence: Procedures
for Implementation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3582 and 4205(g) (Jan. 17,
2019), www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5050_050_EN.pdf.
Background
Dorceant was found guilty by a jury of conspiring with
others to possess with the intent to distribute more than 500
grams of cocaine and conspiring to import more than 500 grams of
cocaine, which resulted in the death of another person. He was
sentenced to a term of 360 months of incarceration on each
count, to be served concurrently, with four years of supervised
3 release. He has now served 127 months or approximately 35.3% of
his full sentence. His projected release date is January 10,
2036.
Dorceant is a permanent legal resident of the United
States. The probation officer reports that Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has a detainer against him and that
at the end of his incarceration, Dorceant will likely be
released to the custody of ICE for deportation to the Dominican
Republic.2 In addition, Dorceant has pending charges against him
from Miami-Dade County Court (Florida) for kidnapping and
battery.
Dorceant’s crimes in this case involved a drug smuggling
operation in which Dorceant and others recruited women in Puerto
Rico to transport cocaine for them. The women were required to
travel to the Dominican Republic where they swallowed “eggs” or
“fingers” of cocaine and then flew to Boston, Massachusetts,
transporting the cocaine internally. There, the women were
taken to a motel in Salem, New Hampshire, where the eggs or
fingers of cocaine were expelled through the use of laxatives.
One woman died of acute cocaine intoxication during that
process, having ingested at least forty-three fingers of
cocaine.
2 The government states in its objection that Dorceant is a native of Haiti and will likely be deported to Haiti by ICE.
4 In November of 2014, Dorceant applied for a reduction in
his sentence based on an amendment to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”), Amendment 782. Amendment
782 reduced the base offense levels assigned to drug quantity
tables in U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1 and 2D1.11. Dorceant’s offense
level, however, was not based on the drug quantity tables.
Instead, his offense level was based on the offense level
applicable to drug offenses that result in death under
§ 2D1.1(a)(2). Therefore, the motion was denied.
Dorceant is forty-nine years old and has hypertension,
along with a list of other medical and health conditions. Dr.
Gavin Muir, Chief Medical Officer of Amoskeag Health, in
Manchester, New Hampshire, reviewed Dorceant’s medical records
and provided an opinion that Dorceant’s hypertension could put
him at higher risk if he contracted COVID-19. Dr. Muir wrote
that the other conditions did not raise Dorceant’s risk.
In addition to hypertension, Dorceant lists “reflex
sympathetic dystrophy” of his leg. His leg condition is a
regional pain syndrome that develops after an injury with pain
that is out of proportion to the actual injury. Dorceant
injured his foot in 2002, and apparently the regional pain
syndrome developed from that injury. When the presentence
investigation report in his case was filed in March of 2011,
Dorceant used a crutch to walk. He now uses a wheelchair.
5 Dorceant also identifies a medical condition of idiopathic
peripheral neuropathy, which Dorceant describes as debilitating
and incurable. Dorceant declined an MRI in June of 2020 to
further assess his neuropathy condition. Dorceant also has an
immune deficiency, which Dr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 10-cr-047-JD Opinion No. 2020 DNH 191 Luckenson Dorceant
O R D E R
Luckenson Dorceant moves, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A), to have his sentence reduced to time served
based on the combined effect of his medical conditions and the
risks presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.1 The government
objects to the requested relief. United States Probation and
Pretrial Services has filed a report and recommendation.
Counsel on Dorceant’s behalf requested a hearing on the
motions. Under the local rules of this district, motions are
decided without oral argument unless a party provides a written
statement “outlining the reasons why oral argument may provide
assistance to the court.” LR 7.1(d). No such statement was
provided here. Therefore, no hearing was held.
1 Dorceant filed a motion pro se, and then counsel was appointed to represent him, for purposes of seeking relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A), and counsel filed a supplemental motion. Although Dorceant reversed his name to “Dorceant Luckenson” in his motion, his appointed counsel uses the name Luckenson Dorceant, which is the name used during the criminal proceedings. The court, therefore, will use Luckenson Dorceant. Standard of Review
The Director of the BOP may bring a motion on behalf of a
defendant to reduce the term of the defendant’s imprisonment.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). If the Director does not file such a motion on
behalf of a defendant, the defendant may file a motion on his or
her own behalf in certain circumstances. The defendant must
have “fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a
failure of the BOP to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf”
or, thirty days must have passed since the warden at the
defendant’s facility received the defendant’s request without a
response. Id.
When a defendant has satisfied the administrative
exhaustion requirement, the court may reduce a term of
imprisonment based on a finding that “extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and “after
considering the factors provided in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the
extent that they are applicable.” § 3582(c)(1)(A). The statute
also directs consideration of whether the requested “reduction
is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.” § 3582(c)(1)(A).
The applicable policy statement is United States Sentencing
Guidelines § 1B1.13. That guidance provides that a defendant’s
term of imprisonment may be reduced if extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant the reduction or the defendant meets
2 the age and time-served requirements and the defendant is not “a
danger to the safety of any other person or to the community” and
the reduction is consistent with the policy statement. See United
States v. Jones, 2020 WL 6205783, at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 22, 2020).
Application Note 1 to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 provides additional
guidance as to when an extraordinary and compelling reason to
reduce a defendant’s sentence may exist. Those reasons include
medical conditions, age, family circumstances, and extraordinary
and compelling reasons “other than, or in combination with, the
reasons described.” BOP Program Statement 5050.50 also provides
guidance as to when post-sentencing developments, medical
conditions, age, and family circumstances support a motion for
sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A). Program Statement No.
5050.50, Compassionate Release/Reduction in Sentence: Procedures
for Implementation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3582 and 4205(g) (Jan. 17,
2019), www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5050_050_EN.pdf.
Background
Dorceant was found guilty by a jury of conspiring with
others to possess with the intent to distribute more than 500
grams of cocaine and conspiring to import more than 500 grams of
cocaine, which resulted in the death of another person. He was
sentenced to a term of 360 months of incarceration on each
count, to be served concurrently, with four years of supervised
3 release. He has now served 127 months or approximately 35.3% of
his full sentence. His projected release date is January 10,
2036.
Dorceant is a permanent legal resident of the United
States. The probation officer reports that Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has a detainer against him and that
at the end of his incarceration, Dorceant will likely be
released to the custody of ICE for deportation to the Dominican
Republic.2 In addition, Dorceant has pending charges against him
from Miami-Dade County Court (Florida) for kidnapping and
battery.
Dorceant’s crimes in this case involved a drug smuggling
operation in which Dorceant and others recruited women in Puerto
Rico to transport cocaine for them. The women were required to
travel to the Dominican Republic where they swallowed “eggs” or
“fingers” of cocaine and then flew to Boston, Massachusetts,
transporting the cocaine internally. There, the women were
taken to a motel in Salem, New Hampshire, where the eggs or
fingers of cocaine were expelled through the use of laxatives.
One woman died of acute cocaine intoxication during that
process, having ingested at least forty-three fingers of
cocaine.
2 The government states in its objection that Dorceant is a native of Haiti and will likely be deported to Haiti by ICE.
4 In November of 2014, Dorceant applied for a reduction in
his sentence based on an amendment to the United States
Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”), Amendment 782. Amendment
782 reduced the base offense levels assigned to drug quantity
tables in U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1 and 2D1.11. Dorceant’s offense
level, however, was not based on the drug quantity tables.
Instead, his offense level was based on the offense level
applicable to drug offenses that result in death under
§ 2D1.1(a)(2). Therefore, the motion was denied.
Dorceant is forty-nine years old and has hypertension,
along with a list of other medical and health conditions. Dr.
Gavin Muir, Chief Medical Officer of Amoskeag Health, in
Manchester, New Hampshire, reviewed Dorceant’s medical records
and provided an opinion that Dorceant’s hypertension could put
him at higher risk if he contracted COVID-19. Dr. Muir wrote
that the other conditions did not raise Dorceant’s risk.
In addition to hypertension, Dorceant lists “reflex
sympathetic dystrophy” of his leg. His leg condition is a
regional pain syndrome that develops after an injury with pain
that is out of proportion to the actual injury. Dorceant
injured his foot in 2002, and apparently the regional pain
syndrome developed from that injury. When the presentence
investigation report in his case was filed in March of 2011,
Dorceant used a crutch to walk. He now uses a wheelchair.
5 Dorceant also identifies a medical condition of idiopathic
peripheral neuropathy, which Dorceant describes as debilitating
and incurable. Dorceant declined an MRI in June of 2020 to
further assess his neuropathy condition. Dorceant also has an
immune deficiency, which Dr. Muir concluded was not sufficiently
documented to show a diagnosis or an acute condition.
Dorceant is now incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Loretto, Pennsylvania (“FCI Loretto”). The
Bureau of Prisons (“BPO”) reports that there are currently seven
active cases of COVID-19 among its staff but no cases among
inmates. https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (October 20, 2020).
FCI Loretto is using the BOP’s modified operations in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic that includes quarantining, screening,
limited group gatherings, limited movement of inmates within the
facility, and restrictions on access by contractors and
visitors. All inmates and staff have been issued masks. Social
visits are limited to non-contact visits.3
During his ten years of incarceration, Dorceant has had
multiple disciplinary reports.4 Those include many incidents of
3 Dorceant’s sisters, Kathy Dorceant and Geraldina Turlington-Santana, and his father, Philneus Dorceant, submitted letters in support of his motion.
4 Dorceant has brought at least two pro se lawsuits challenging disciplinary matters. Dorceant v. Purdue, Civil Action No. 17-cv-169 (M.D. Pa. April 10, 2019) (denying petition for writ of habeas corpus that challenged disciplinary
6 refusing to obey an order and being insolent to officers,
stealing food, tampering with a security device, and possessing
gambling paraphernalia. Because of his disciplinary reports,
Dorceant has lost privileges and good time credit and has been
placed in disciplinary segregation.
On April 4, 2019, Dorceant sent a document to the court
titled “Affidavit of Truth Legal Notice” that was docketed as a
new case, 19-mc-12-LM.5 After further consideration, it appeared
that Dorceant did not intend to begin a new action but deposited
the document with the court in anticipation of other litigation
in the future. Dorceant further represented that the document
was part of a private matter between him and the prosecutor in
his criminal case. The case was terminated.
Dorceant applied to the Warden at FCI Loretto for a motion
for sentence reduction. The Warden denied his request.
proceedings at FCI Lompoc); Dorceant v. Fox, Civil Action No. 17-cv-150 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 2017) (denying petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging another disciplinary proceeding at FCI Lompoc).
5 The affidavit appears to attempt to show that Title 18 of the United States Code was not properly adopted or is otherwise unenforceable and argues that Dorceant’s incarceration is unlawful. He accuses the prosecutor in this case of a variety of misdeeds and argues that this case should be dismissed.
7 Discussion
Dorceant seeks a reduction of his sentence on the ground
that his medical conditions pose an increased risk if he were to
contract COVID-19. He also argues that the sentencing factors
in § 3553(a) support his motion. The government opposes the
motion on the ground that the § 3553(a) factors do not support a
reduction in Dorceant’s sentence.
A. Administrative Exhaustion and Extraordinary and Compelling Reason to Reduce Sentence
The government does not dispute that some of Dorceant’s
medical conditions could cause an increased risk if he were to
contract COVID-19, which provides an extraordinary and
compelling reason in support of his motion. The government also
does not dispute that Dorceant exhausted administrative
remedies. Therefore, those matters need not be addressed
further.
B. Sentencing Factors
Section 3553(a) states that the “court shall impose a
sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply
with the purposes” provided in § 3553(a)(2), and lists factors
for determining an appropriate sentence. The first two factors
8 are particularly pertinent for purposes of this motion.6 The
first factor directs the sentencing court to consider “the
nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant.” § 3553(a)(1). The second
factor focuses on the purposes of sentencing, including:
the need for the sentence imposed— (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.
§ 3553(a)(2).
The court considered all of the § 3553(a) factors when
Dorceant was sentenced to 360 months in prison, which was an
appropriate sentence for his extremely serious crimes. The only
intervening significant change is the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although Dorceant may be at increased risk if he were to
contract COVID-19, the risk is currently low and managed at FCI
Loretto, where Dorceant is incarcerated. Therefore, the COVID-
19 pandemic does not weigh in favor of a reduced sentence.
6 The third factor directs consideration of “the kinds of sentences available;” the fourth and fifth factors focus on the Sentencing Guidelines; the sixth factor addresses “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities;” and the seventh factor directs courts to consider the defendant’s restitution obligations.
9 Dorceant argues that the sentencing factors support a
reduction in his sentence. Dorceant’s record does not support
his argument.
Although he did not have criminal history points when he
was sentenced, his presentence investigation report noted, based
on the reports of others in the conspiracy, that he had engaged
in the same drug smuggling activities before the operation for
which he was arrested and charged. The probation officer
reports for purposes of the present motion that Dorceant had
been arrested at least a dozen times for driving offenses and
battery offenses. His prison disciplinary record is significant
and ongoing.
Dorceant’s crimes of conviction involved large quantities
of drugs smuggled into the United States from the Dominican
Republic. Those crimes resulted in the death of one of the
women recruited to transport the drugs. Dorceant was an
organizer or leader of the criminal activity that included more
than five other people. His sentencing range was 360 months to
life, and his sentence was at the lowest end of that range.
Another sentencing consideration is that if Dorceant’s
sentence were reduced, he likely would be released to the
custody of ICE for deportation.7 As a result, he likely would
7 Probation reports that Dorceant also has outstanding criminal charges against him in Florida.
10 remain incarcerated pending deportation. He has not shown that
a reduction in his sentence would allow him to live in a place
with less risk of exposure to COVID-19 than he may have at FCI
Loretto.8
For the reasons discussed, the § 3553(a) sentencing factors
weigh heavily against reducing Dorceant’s sentence under
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Although Dorceant has shown an increased risk
if he were to contract COVID-19 in prison, he has not shown that
the circumstances at FCI Loretto put him at increased risk as
opposed to the circumstances that would exist if his sentence
were reduced. Therefore, Dorceant has not shown that he is
entitled to a reduction in his sentence under § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motions for
reduction of his sentence (documents nos. 132 and 137) are
denied.
SO ORDERED.
______________________________ Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. United States District Judge
November 2, 2020 cc: Counsel of record.
8 For example, if Dorceant were held in ICE custody in New Hampshire, he likely would be housed at the Strafford County House of Corrections. If he were held in Pennsylvania, he likely would be in one of three correctional facilities there.