My name is Donald Stantion Shealey. I am a 43 old son, father and grandfather, as well as a native of Durham, North Carolina. 

On September 29, 2008, I along  with 9 Co-Defendants  were indicted in the Eastern District of North Carolina for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1 kilogram or more of heroine, 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, 50 grams or more of cocaine based "Crack", and money laundering charges. All of my co-defendants pled guilty and I went to trial. 

After a three and a half week jury trial, I was found guilty on all counts. On July 14th I was sentenced to natural life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. My co-defendants, some who were equally culpable and who also had similar criminal records, received sentences ranging from 70 to 190 months. There was obviously a gross sentencing disparity between myself and my co-defendants. There are numerous defendants around the country with similar cases, and some with even more severe cases—some who were charged with violence including murder or multiple murders. But yet those defendants have less time to serve than I do for a non-viliolent drug offense. Some have even received sentence reductions as a result of new changes in the laws and mainly because most of them have pled guilty instead of going to trial. I suffer from what is called the "TRIAL PENALTY".

There are some people who are familiar with my case. But for those who are not, if you read what the government has presented to the "American People/Public", you would think that Donald “FaceDiddy” Shealey was this heartless, violent gang leader and that he had terrorized his community.  That is the furthest thing from the truth. The truth is there is NO CHARGED VIOLENCE in this case; NO SENTENCING ENHANCMENTS for violence in this case; not even a police call or a police report in this case that pertains to violence. There is one uncorroborated statement from a defendant seeking a lenient sentence.

I AM ASKING ANYONE THAT IS READING TO PLEASE HELP LIFT MY VOICE AND HELP SHINE LIGHT ON THE GROSS SENTENCING DIAPARITY AND INJUSTICE THAT I RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF EXCISING MY 6TH ADMENDMENT RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL..

PLEASE READ BELOW A BRIEF SUMMARY OF MY COMPLAINT:

First: 

Juxtaposed to the underlying offense conduct is Shealey's impressive post-sentencing conduct which is critical focus. Mr. Shealey's post-sentencing rehabilitative accomplishments while incarcerated, is an inquiry the Supreme Court has endorsed. United States v. Peppers, 562 U.S. 476,491-92,131 S. Ct.1229,179 L.Ed 2D 196 (2011) The extensive evidence of Shealey's rehabilitation since his initial sentencing is clearly relevant to the selection of the appropriate sentence in this case. In sum, if Mr. Shealey's initial conduct and criminal history remains a debit on his 3553(a) ledger, then his overall good conduct while incarcerated and sustained rehabilitative efforts must, in fairness, be a counter balancing credit. Mr. Shealey's efforts upon entering the BOP greatly diminish the need for the original sentence. He has taken up Victim Impact twice (acknowledging his bad decisions and it's effects on others), Mental and suicide companion, drug program, Parenting Classes parts I and II, had served as a mentor in a program called "Focus on The Family". He has also taken up Critical Thinking with an emphasis on helping younger men to choose a different path. He is very remorseful for the harm he caused in his community, etc.

THE NEED TO AVIOD UNWARRANTED SENTENCING DISPARITIES AMONG DEFENDANTS WITH SIMILAR RECORDS WHO HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY ON SIMILAR CONDUCT. RESENTENCING IN THIS CASE ACCOMPLISHES THE GOAL OF AVOIDING THE SENTENCING DISPARITIES ON TWO FRONTS: Disparities between Mr. Shealey and his co-defendants who where equally culpable, as well as the disparities between Mr. Shealey and defendants sentenced today for similar conduct.

Second: 

Mr. Shealey recounts recent instances of resentencing in this circuit as well as around the country like those here including the granting of Mr. Shealey's two co-defendant's of the First Step Act 404(b) motions and Compassionate Release. 

In United States v. Cheese, No. ELH-98-0259,2020 U.S. Dist. Lexis 116606,2020 W: 3618987(F.Md.July 2, 2020) Judge Hollander found that 28 years sentence sufficiently accomplished the goals of 3553(a) where the defendant was originally sentenced to LIFE in prison after being convicted at trial for conspiracy to distribute heroin, cocaine and cocaine base, as well as two counts of possession of a firearm by convicted felon. Similar, Chief Judge Breadar reduced a life sentence down to 330 months where the defendant was convicted in 1988 of conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine within 1000 feet of school. United states v. Hill, No.JKB-96-0399,202 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75679,2020 WL2089379 (D.Md. April 30,2020).

Please see below cases where Mr. Shealey notes are linked to violence. Again, it is important to note that there is NO violence in Mr. Shealey's case, he has no charges nor enhancements for violence, and there were no findings by a jury nor by a judge by preponderance of the evidence STANDARD that Mr. Shealey committed any violence; "ONLY ALLEGATIONS", where the judge imposed a shorter sentence than Mr. Shealey's is currently serving. 

Cases:

Def's Mot. 14 (citing, United States v. Bazemore, no, CCB-16-0597 (imposing 285 months and 10 days total imprisonment after defendant plead guilty to a racketeering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. 1962 and conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 846 A.

Judgement ECF No.510, after defendant and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 846 

Amended Judgement ECF No.510, after defendant admitted his participation in a murder, Plea Agreement at 10 EFC no.368) 

United States v. Plummer, No. GLR-17-0223 (Imposing 25 years sentence upon guilty plea to racketeering where defendant admitted in a statement of facts to firing multiple gun shots at a moving vehicle, resulting in the death of a three year old girl.

Plea Agreement at 10 EFC No.368; Judgement, EFC No.627) United States v. Fisher, 2020 WL 5992340, 83-cr-00150(PAC)(S.D.N.Y. October 2020)—Releasing prisoner sentenced to life without parole for large drug conspiracy including at least four murders because of his "considerable and sustained efforts to rehabilitate himself).

United States v. Rodrequez,_F.Supp 3d._,2020 WL 5810161, 00-cr-761 (JSR)(S.D.N.Y. Sept 2020)—Releasing prisoner in light of his outstanding long term prison reformation even though he was convicted of torturing a government informant to death.

United States v. Torres Supp. 3d. 651 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)—Reducing to time served the LWOP sentence of the two former Kingpins in a Large Scale Heroin conspiracy, citing remarkable post-sentencing rehabilitation.

The Government argues that Mr. Shealey remains a danger to the community in light of his now distant criminal conduct. However, all of the co-defendants on this case that Mr. Shealey allegedly conspired with are all home. 

Mr. Shealey agrees that his past criminal conduct continues to be relevant, but if it is as dispositive as the Government apparently views it, then the possibility a sentence reduction would be illusory - theoretically available, but in reality out of reach for any defendant with a bad prior criminal conduct and criminal history, regardless of how long he has served or how much effort he has expended to rehabilitate himself. Such a position should be unpersuasive and after reflecting upon Mr. Shealey's rehabilitative accomplishments while incarcerated an inquiry the Supreme Court has endorsed. United States v. Peppers, 562 U.S. 476,491-92,131 S.Ct. 1229 179 L.Ed.2d 196 (2011)  Mr.. Shealey is the Lone remaining defendant in this case serving a sentence of incarceration. 

Mr. Shealey understands the severity of his conduct and the significance of the Leadership Role, but it is worth mentioning that no one else in this case received a sentence higher than 190 months for the same charged conduct as Mr. Shealey. Not to mention, this same District Court recently reduced the sentences of the two remaining two co-defendants; Tyrone Ricardo Lawrence and Timothy Lamont Hargrove, to time served after finding that they both had significant criminal histories where they faced mandatory life sentences. They also had significant disciplinary infractions that they received while incarcerated. These defendants are more situated to Mr. Shealey than the Government leads on. The real difference here is that Mr. Shealey is receiving a "Trial Penalty" for exercising his 6th Amendment Right to a jury trial. 

While the Leadership Role is significant, it shouldn't have the strength to secure a Life Sentence in this particular case where there is NO CHARGED VIOLENCE, NO ENHANCEMENTS FOR VIOLENCE, MURDERS OR ASSAULTS and no corroborating evidence to support any allegation of violent acts. There is no mere police report of any alleged violence. This is a VICTIMLESS case. The Government has no evidence of Mr. Shealey being a danger to the public nor of directing any one to terrorize his community. This is not to say Mr. Shealey never committed violence in his life, but the level of violence the Government describes is overstated and misrepresented in this case.

When Mr. Shealey was initially sentenced in 2008, he was subject to an 851 enhancement, career offender statute with six criminal history points, an increased statutory minimum sentence for Count One, and an increased statutory maximum in Count 2-6. 

Today, after applying the First Step Act 404(b) (United States v. Collington, United States v. Chambers), to Mr. Shealey's sentence, he would no longer be eligible to receive the 851 enhancement, career offender statutes, but he would have four criminal history points and impressive rehabilitation conduct. Because of the government’s resentment towards Mr. Shealey for going to trial, his motion under the First Step Act 404(b) was denied while his co-defendants’ motions were granted.

So while Mr. Shealey was undoubtedly deserving of a severe prison sentence for his conduct in 2004-2008, the record makes clear that he has successfully undertaken substantial rehabilitative efforts and in the 3553(a) analysis, this should militate in favor of resentencing. 

The government and District Court continue to point out Mr. Shealey's four infractions (one of them being a fight as Mr. Shealey defended himself while in a maximum security facility in a United States Penitentiary), during his thirteen years while in BOP custody, do not favor a sentencing reduction. His infractions were infrequent and as of September 2021, Mr. Shealey has been infraction-free for over a decade and has worked his way down to a lesser security prison at medium custody. 

Mr. Shealey asks the Department of Justice, judges, prosecutors and the President of the United States to restore Rehabilitation back into our criminal justice system and to stand as an example that rehabilitation is one of the primary goals of punishment. It is a goal that can not be properly served if a defendant has nothing to look forward to beyond a life imprisonment. 

Hope is the necessary condition of mankind for we are all made in the image of God. A judge using wisdom and discretion should at all times be hesitant to sentence so severely that he/she destroys all hope and takes away all possibilities of a useful and fulfilling life. Punishment should never be more severe than necessary to satisfy the goals of punishment itself. Hope is therefore the main ingredient of our rehabilitation.

Because Mr. Shealey continues to serve his sentence—one that has a more severe sentence than the above-cited cases, as well as the sentencing disparity between Mr. Shealey and similarly situated defendants,  for these reasons Mr. Shealey implores The PRESIDENT of the United States to find that a sentence reduction is necessary to avoid an unwarranted sentencing disparity by thereby granting Donald Stantion Shealey clemency and sentencing to immediate release or no more than 20 years. For Mr. Shealey's conduct and leadership role, not more than 20 years would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary to satisfy the goals of punishment. A 20 year sentence would be five more than anyone on this case who were equally culpable, which was received during the original sentence, and even more so now that the same two co-defendants who received 190 months have also received the benefits of the First Step Act 404(b) and were resentenced to Immediate Release. 

Conclusion: 

For the above stated reasons, i ask you to please sign this petition and join me in urging the President of the United States to grant me clemency and a new sentence of time served. Thank YOU!