United States of America v. Short et al

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 96-0232

MICHAEL SHORT SECTION "L"

ORDER & REASONS

Before the Court is pro se Defendant Michael Short’s Motion to Modify Term of
Imprisonment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 591 (Rec. Doc. 972). Having
considered the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, the Court now issues this Order & Reasons.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 10, 1996, a Federal Grand Jury returned a twenty-seven count, third
superseding indictment charging Mr. Short in Count 1 with conspiring to distribute heroin and
cocaine; in Count 2 with engaging in a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (“CCE”) involving a
conspiracy to possess heroin; in Count 3 with intentionally killing Derrick Hubbard in furtherance
of a CCE; in Count 4 with killing Derrick Hubbard through the use of a firearm; in Count 5 with
carrying a firearm in the commission of a drug trafficking crime; and in Counts 6 and 7 with using
a telephone in furtherance of the drug conspiracy. Mr. Short was also charged with access device
fraud and money laundering.
On June 3, 1997, Mr. Short was convicted on all charged counts of the indictment. (Rec.
Doc. 396). On April 29, 1998, he was sentenced by Judge Porteous to a term of life imprisonment
and a consecutive term of 60 months’ imprisonment. (Rec. Doc. 548). On May 6, 1998, Mr. Short
timely appealed. (Rec. Doc. 551). On August 19, 1999, the United State Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed his conviction in part and vacated in part. (Rec. Doc. 583). On December
Case 2:96-cr-00232-EEF Document 981 Filed 08/18/23 Page 1 of 4

2

28, 2000, Mr. Short filed a 28. U.S.C. § 2255 motion (Rec. Doc. 586), which was also denied (Rec.
Doc. 617). He then filed a motion for reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 621), which was also denied.
(Rec. Doc. 622). On September 12, 2014, he filed a notice of appeal (Rec. Doc. 624) and a motion
for a certificate of appealability. (Rec. Doc. 625). On October 11, 2001, he filed a second notice
of appeal. (Rec. Doc. 629). On October 15, 2001, Judge Porteous denied his request for a
certificate of appealability. (Rec. Doc. 629). On January 8, 2002, the Fifth Circuit denied his
request for a certificate of appealability. (Rec. Doc. 636). On August 19, 2002, Mr. Short filed a
motion for reconsideration. (Rec. Doc. 660). It, too, was denied on September 9, 2002. (Rec.
Doc. 661). On September 30, 2002, Mr. Short again sought a certificate of appealability. (Rec.
Doc. 666). Judge Porteous denied that request on October 23, 2002. (Rec. Doc. 669). On February
12, 2003, the Fifth Circuit also denied the request. (Rec. Doc. 672). On October 24, 2003, Judge
Porteous recused himself from the case and it was reassigned to Judge Eldon E. Fallon. (Rec. Doc.
684).
Over the past twenty years, Mr. Short has filed numerous motions seeking reductions in
his sentence, to vacate, to modify the terms of his imprisonment, and for compassionate release.
The Court is well aware of history of his case and will not reproduce the chronology here. See Rec.
Doc. 980 at 1-5 (providing a thorough outline of Mr. Short’s filed motions and their dispositions).
At the end of 2015, Mr. Short filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 591. Rec. Docs. 805, 809. This Court denied these motions on March
23, 2016, explaining that Amendment 591 is not applicable to Short’s sentence “because the
sentencing provision of U.S.S.G. § 2A.1.1 for first degree murder was applied to him” whereas
Amendment 591 “merely clarified that, ‘in order for enhanced penalties in § 2D1.2 to apply, the
defendant must be convicted of an offense referenced to § 2D1.2, rather than simply have engaged
Case 2:96-cr-00232-EEF Document 981 Filed 08/18/23 Page 2 of 4

3

in conduct described by that guideline.[’] Therefore, Amendment 591’s changes to § 2D1.2 do not
impact Mr. Short’s sentence.” Rec. Doc. 812 at 4 (quoting Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual
Amendment 591 (11/1/13) (Reason for Amendment)). This Court additionally noted that “the Fifth
Circuit has repeatedly rejected § 3582(c)(2) motions based upon Amendment 591 where, as here,
a defendant challenges base offense calculations within the applicable offense guidelines.” Id. at
5 (citing United States v. Wilson, 267 F. App’x 317, 318 (5th Cir. 2008)).
II. MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
In Mr. Short’s Motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, he argues that
his sentence should be reduced in light of Amendment 591 of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines, arguing specifically that “the sentencing judge did not apply the appropriate chapter
two offense guideline section at sentencing for his conviction under counts 2, 3, and 4 where the
murder was committed in furtherance of the drug conspiracy.” Rec. Doc. 972 at 1. In his earlier
motion for a reduction pursuant to Amendment 591, Mr. Short focused only on the calculation of
the drug amount under count 2. Id.
This argument is unavailing however because in the March 23, 2016 order, this Court
explained that “contrary to Mr. Short’s argument, the Court did select the correct Chapter Two
offense guidelines for Mr. Short’s base offense level calculation,” explaining that “the counts of
conviction, with the exception of Count 5, were grouped, and the highest applicable offense level
was applied” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(a). Id. at 4. Accordingly, as the Court has already
ruled on the inapplicability of Amendment 591 to Mr. Short’s sentence, the Court denies Mr.
Short’s instant motion.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Short’s motion to reduce his
sentence, Rec. Doc. 972, is DENIED.

Case 2:96-cr-00232-EEF Document 981 Filed 08/18/23 Page 3 of 4

4

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 18th day of August, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:96-cr-00232-EEF Document 981 Filed 08/18/23 Page 4 of 4