USA v. Eckles et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:05-CR-9-KDB-DCK-13
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the United States’ motion to hold this matter in
abeyance pending the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Gravatt, No. 19-6852. (Doc.
No. 1743). Defendant objects to the motion, noting that certain of his co-defendants who entered
into plea agreements that limited their responsibility to crack cocaine or a lower quantity of other
controlled substances have had their sentences reduced based on the drug type and quantities
admitted to in their plea agreements. See id. at 3. After careful consideration of the parties’
arguments, and for the reasons stated below, the Court finds that a stay is warranted and GRANTS
the motion.
A federal grand jury charged Defendant in March of 2005 with conspiring to possess with
intent to distribute at least 50 grams of crack cocaine, five kilograms of powder cocaine, and 1,000
kilograms of marijuana. (Doc. No. 60, at 3-4); (Doc. No. 1741, at 2). Each of these drug quantities
would have triggered a statutory mandatory minimum of 10 years and a statutory maximum of life
under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). Defendant entered a straight-up plea of guilty, admitting that he
committed the conspiracy offense.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. ORDER
ANTHONY DEWAYNE MCCLELLAND,
Defendant.
Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK Document 1744 Filed 02/25/20 Page 1 of 4

2
On January 21, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to the First
Step Act of 2018. (Doc. No. 1740). Less than a week later, the United States Probation Office filed
a supplemental presentence report (PSR), concluding that Defendant is not eligible for a sentence
reduction under the First Step Act because the indictment charged him with a drug-trafficking
conspiracy involving not only 50 grams of crack cocaine, but also at least five kilograms of powder
cocaine and 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. (Doc. No. 1741, at 2). The Court ordered the United
States to file a response to Defendant’s motion to reduce his sentence. Defendant filed a
supplemental memorandum addressing the issues raised in the PSR and arguing that he is still
eligible for First Step Act relief. (Doc. No. 1742). The United States has now filed this motion to
hold the matter in abeyance. (Doc. No. 1743).
In United States v. Gravatt, the Fourth Circuit is considering “[w]hether the district court
erred in determining Gravatt was not eligible for a sentence reduction under § 404 of the First Step
Act because he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute five kilograms or more of powder cocaine
and 50 grams or more of cocaine base and, therefore, the statutory penalty range for his violation
was not modified by § 2 or § 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.” Case No. 19-6825, (Doc. No.
27, at 1). Oral arguments in Gravatt were held last month. The United States argues that
Defendant’s case “presents this same legal issue” and the Fourth Circuit’s decision “is likely to
resolve the legal issue presented in McClelland’s motion.” (Doc. No. 1743, at 2).
This Court has “broad discretion” to stay its proceedings pending the resolution of
independent proceedings occurring elsewhere. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). Indeed,
“the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the
disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK Document 1744 Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 4

3
for litigants.” Landis v. N. American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also United States v.
Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 2017).
Where the non-movant objects to a stay, this Court must “ascertain” whether a stay should
issue by “balanc[ing]” the “benefit[s]” of a stay with any resultant “hardship.” Landis, 299 U.S. at
259. For a stay to issue, “[t]he party seeking a stay must justify it by clear and convincing
circumstances outweighing potential harm to the party against whom it is operative.” Williford v.
Armstrong World, 715 F.2d 124, 127 (4th Cir. 1983); see also Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708 (“The
proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.”).
A stay pending the result of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Gravatt is the
most appropriate path for conserving the Court’s resources and adjudicating this case in the most
efficient manner possible. Most significant to the Court in making this determination is the
substantial overlap between the legal issues present here and those that the Fourth Circuit may
itself soon decide. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 256 (noting that judicial economy is served by placing
a case in abeyance pending a decision even if the decision “may not settle every question of fact
and law in [the case], but in all likelihood it will settle many and simplify them all.”). Importantly,
this stay is not indefinite, but instead will last only until the Fourth Circuit issues a decision, which
the United States’ expects to be in the coming months. See (Doc. No. 1743, at 2); see also Landis,
299 U.S. at 256 (explaining that sometimes litigants must “submit to delay not immoderate in
extent and not oppressive in its consequences if the public welfare or convenience will thereby be
promoted.”). Further, any potential harm to Defendant from a stay will be minimal—and in fact,
Defendant may benefit from a stay. Without guidance from the Fourth Circuit, this Court might
hold that Defendant is not eligible for relief under the First Step Act. If the Fourth Circuit makes
clear that Defendant is eligible for relief, then this Court would consider his motion and the
Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK Document 1744 Filed 02/25/20 Page 3 of 4

4
favorable evidence which could increase his likelihood of success on his motion to reduce his
sentence. Balancing these interests, the Court concludes that a stay is warranted here.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the United States’ Motion to Hold in Abeyance,
(Doc. No. 1743), is GRANTED. Defendant’s Motion for a Reduced Sentence Pursuant to the First
Step Act of 2018, (Doc. No. 1740), is thus held in ABEYANCE pending the Fourth Circuit’s
decision in United States v. Gravatt, No. 19-6852.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel inform the Court within fourteen (14) days of
the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Gravatt.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: February 24, 2020
Case 5:05-cr-00009-MEO-DCK Document 1744 Filed 02/25/20 Page 4 of 4