Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-1_04-cr-00232-3
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, *
v. *
Crim. No. CCB-04-232
SOLOTHAL THOMAS, *
Defendant. *
MEMORANDUM
Solothal Thomas is currently serving two concurrent life sentences for his involvement in
a murder for hire conspiracy which resulted in the death of Jesse Williams.1
Represented by appointed counsel, in 2023 Mr. Thomas filed a motion for compassionate
release. (ECF 371). He seeks a sentence reduction based on a combination of factors, including
(1) the disparity of the length of his sentence with the average sentence for murder; (2) the
disparity of his sentence with his codefendants’ sentences; (3) his age; (4) his mental health and
repeated suicide attempts; and (5) his rehabilitation . The government has opposed the motion
(ECF 383), and Mr. Thomas has replied (ECF 386) No oral argument is necessary. For the
reasons that follow, Mr. Thomas’s motion will be granted in part and denied in part. His
sentences will be reduced to 35 years.
Evaluating a motion for compassionate release involves a two- step analysis. U nited
States v. Centeno-Morales, 90 F.4th 274, 279 (4th Cir. 2024). First, the defendant must show that
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant his release. Id . (quoting United States v.
Hargrove, 30 F.4th 189, 194–95 (4th Cir. 2022)); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). If that burden is
met, the court must then evaluate the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a).
1 The court recently denied in part and granted in part Mr. Thomas’s motion to vacate under 28
U.S.C. § 2255.
Case 1:04-cr-00232-BAH Document 389 Filed 12/27/24 Page 1 of 8
2
Centeno-Morales, 90 F.4th at 279. The burden is on the defendant to show that those factors
support release. Id.
I. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons
Mr. Thomas raises several factors to show that extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant his release. While none of the factors, standing alone, would justify release, the c ourt
finds that in the aggregate, Mr. Thomas has met his burden to show extraordinary and
compelling reasons.
First, the disparity between Mr. Thomas’s sentence and the average sentence for murder
in this district weighs in Mr. Thomas’s favor . A sentencing disparity may, in some
circumstances, constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason to grant compassionate release.
See United States v. Payton , PJM -06-341, 2021 WL 927631, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2021)
(granting compassionate release because of sentence reduction of defendant’s more culpable
coconspirator). Mr. Thomas was convicted of two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a), murder for
hire. Section 1958(a) mandates a sentence of life imprisonment if death results from the murder
for hire. The statute imposed a mandatory life sentence when Mr. Thomas was sentenced in
2004, and it continues to impose a mandatory life sentence today. But nothing in § 3582 prevents
its application to mandatory life sentences. See United States v. Johnson, Case No. 1:97- cr-314-
AJT, 2023 WL 5049267, at *15 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2023) (“ [W]hile the Government centrally
contends that no reduction is appropriate in light of the still applicable mandatory life sentence . .
. Congress did not exempt mandatory life sentences from (a) relief under the original language in
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) or (b) the modifications to the exhaustion requirements of § 3582(c)(1)(A).”);
see also United States v. Perez, Crim. No. JBA-02-0007, 2021 WL 837425, at *5 (D. Conn. Mar.
4, 2021) (“ Although his life sentences are mandatory, the mandatory component does not bar
Case 1:04-cr-00232-BAH Document 389 Filed 12/27/24 Page 2 of 8
3
relief under the First Step Act. . . . Although Mr. Perez was convicted of a most serious
offense—procuring the murder of another —the gravity of the offense does not categorically
preclude the Court from reducing his sentence.”)
And as Mr. Thomas explains, the average sentence for murder is significantly shorter
than Mr. Thomas’s sentence, both nationwide and within this district. See ECF 471 in United
States v. Linton, No. JKB -98-258, at *5–*8 (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2021) (discussing the disparity
between defendant’s life sentence for murder in aid of racketeering compared to the average
sentence for murder in Maryland in 2021). According to the United States Sentencing
Commission, the nationwide mean sentence for murder for fiscal year 2023 was 285 months, and
the median sentence was 276 months. See United States Sentencing Commission, Interactive
Data Analyzer: Distribution of Sentence Length, Fiscal Year 2023, U.S. Sent’g Comm’n,
https://ida.ussc.gov/analytics/saw.dll?Dashboard (last visited Dec. 20, 2024). Within this district,
the mean sentence for murder for fiscal year 2023 was 310 months, and the median sentence was
300 months. See id. Considering that Mr. Thomas was sentenced when he was thirty years old,
Mr. Thomas is likely to serve far longer than either mean sentence. This exceptionally long
sentence counsels toward relief. See U nited States v. Johnson, No. ELH- 99-352, 2023 WL
7130950, at *1, *14 (D. Md. Oct. 27, 2023) (reducing life sentence to 35 years in case involving
drug trafficking and murder); see also ECF 661 in United States v. Holland, No. GLR 96-399 (D.
Md. Aug. 18, 2021) (reducing life sentence to 35 years) ; Brown v. United States, No. ELH-00-
100, 2020 WL 1248950, at *10 (D. Md. Mar. 16, 2020) (reducing life sentence to 40 years) ;
United States v. Williams , No. CCB -07-402, 2021 WL 3725435, at *3 (D. Md. Aug. 23, 2021)
(reducing life sentence to 30 years).
Second, the disparity between Mr. Thomas’s sentence and those of his codefendants is
Case 1:04-cr-00232-BAH Document 389 Filed 12/27/24 Page 3 of 8
4
compelling. While Mr. Thomas and his codefendant, Eduado Countess, were both sentenced to
mandatory life sentences, the sentences of their other coconspirators were dramatically shorter.
Mr. Thomas points to the sentences of his brother, Danta Thomas, and their acquaintance,
Linwood Smith. Danta drove Mr. Thomas and Countess to Williams’s home, where they shot
him. Danta’s sentence was 77 months of imprisonment . Smith was supposed to drive Mr.
Thomas and Countess to Williams’s home that morning, but he overslept. Smith’s sentence was
64 months of imprisonment. Unlike Mr. Thomas, they did not pull the trigger and kill Williams
directly. They also pleaded guilty. Danta testified for the prosecution at trial. See Thomas v.
United States, No. CCB -09-2461, 2013 WL 331337, at *1 (D. Md. Jan. 28, 2013) (describing
Danta’s testimony). Danta and Smith’s minor roles in the conspiracy and their acceptance of
responsibility justify some sentencing disparity. See United States v. Morales-Vega, No. PJM 08-
0051, 2021 WL 4864450, at *5 (D. Md. Oct. 19, 2021) (finding disparity between sentences of
defendant and codefendants was warranted because she was a “manager or supervisor” within
the drug conspiracy, did not accept responsibility early, and possessed a weapon and
ammunition, while the codefendants played minor roles, accepted responsibility, and did not
possess weapons).
The court finds that the more apt comparison is to the sentences of Tyree Stewart, who
issued the contract for Mr. Williams’s murder, and Corey Smith, who brokered the contract and
hired Mr. Thomas and Mr. Countess for $10,000. Stewart was sentenced to 83 months of
imprisonment, and Smith was sentenced to 97 months. Like Danta and Smith, Stewart and Corey
also pleaded guilty. They were also cooperating witnesses. See Thomas, 2013 WL 331337, at *1
(describing Stewart and Corey as cooperating witnesses). Stil l, Mr. Thomas has already served
over twenty years of his sentence —more than three times Stewart’s sentence. Though some
Case 1:04-cr-00232-BAH Document 389 Filed 12/27/24 Page 4 of 8
5
disparity in the sentences is no doubt justified, the disparity between Stewart’s 83- month
sentence and the life sentence that Mr. Thomas is now serving is disproportionate. Stewart was
the mastermind behind the scheme. He planned and directed it. Though Mr. Thomas and
Countess executed the scheme, Stewart has similar culpability. The court finds that the sentence
disparity weighs toward extraordinary and compelling reasons for release.
Next, the c ourt considers Mr. Thomas’s young age when he committed the offense. Mr.
Thomas was twenty -five years old when he killed Williams. As one Fourth Circuit judge has
explained, “modern research . . . instructs that the prefrontal co rtex, the part of the brain that
makes it possible to exercise good judgment when presented with difficult life situations, does
not finish maturing until age 25.” Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco &
Explosives, 5 F.4th 407, 476 (4th Cir. 2021), as amended (July 15, 2021), vacated as moot, 14
F.4th 322 (4th Cir. 2021) (Wynn, J., dissenting); see also ECF 471 in Linton, No. JKB-98-258, at
*7 (“[C]ourts have become more cautious about resorting to the ‘bluntness of mandatory life
sentences’ with respect to youthful defendants.”). Mr. Thomas was a young adult whose
childhood, as explained below, was racked by instability and violence. The c ourt finds his young
age is another factor that supports a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons for release.
Mr. Thomas also relies on his mental health issues , his very difficult childhood, which is
well documented in a social worker’s report (ECF 371 Ex. O)
2, and his rehabilitation during his
term of incarceration. While rehabilitation alone cannot constitute an extraordinary and
compelling reason, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d), it may be considered in combination with other
circumstances in determining whether and to what extent a reduction in the defendant’s term of
2 That the circumstances of Mr. Thomas’s upbringing may have been known at the time of
sentencing does not preclude consideration of his abusive childhood in connection with a motion
for compassionate release. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
Case 1:04-cr-00232-BAH Document 389 Filed 12/27/24 Page 5 of 8
6
imprisonment is warranted . See United States v. McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 286 (4th Cir. 2020)
(affirming grants of compassionate release and noting that “each defendant had established
exceptional institutional records and taken substantial steps toward rehabilitation”).
Mr. Thomas has obtained his GED, completed approximately 1500 hours of additional
programming, and started a Stop Bullying program in prison (ECF 371, Exs. E, L, P, Q). Further,
Mr. Thomas earned his GED and completed much of this programming before the passage of the
First Step Act, when he was serving a mandatory life sentence. In the court’s view, this signifies
that Mr. Thomas was motivated not by the possibility of early release, but because of his genuine
desire for rehabilitation and self -improvement. His last disciplinary infraction was in 2020, and
none of his infrac tions involved violence against others ( ECF 371, Exs. N, R ). Most of his
(limited) infractions are for relatively minor violations, including failure to appear for count or
making a three-way phone call. In Mr. Thomas’s most severe infraction, possession of a weapon
in 2018, Mr. Thomas immediately admitted culpability at his disciplinary hearing (ECF 371, Ex.
N). Mr. Thomas has also recognized the evil of his offense and expressed remorse for his
commission of Mr. Williams’s murder (ECF 371, Ex. O, at 11–12).
Mr. Thomas’s rehabilitation is especially impressive considering the extreme hardship he
has overcome. Mr. Thomas’s mother gave birth to him when she was only five and a half months
pregnant. His upbringing was plagued by violence, poverty, and instability. Mr. Thomas grew up
in the Murphy Homes, a public housing project where, as Mr. Thomas recounted, he saw people
shot in front of him and dead bodies on the ground. That trauma was further compounded by his
parents’ drug addictions. Mr. Thomas was “subjected [to] repeated domestic violence incidents
that took place between his drug- addicted parents when they would openly fight over illicit
substances in front of him.” ( ECF 371, Ex. O , at 4) . Both of Mr. Thomas’s parents died from
Case 1:04-cr-00232-BAH Document 389 Filed 12/27/24 Page 6 of 8
7
AIDS. Mr. Thomas was often neglected, left without food, and subject to physical abuse. These
horrific circumstances of Mr. Thomas’s upbringing make his subsequent rehabilitation, maturity,
and personal growth even more noteworthy. See Johnson, 2023 WL 5049267, at *6 (reducing
life sentence in part because of defendant’s rehabilitation and noting significance of his
rehabilitation in light of his traumatic upbringing).
Finally, the court considers Mr. Thomas’s mental health challenges. Mr. Thomas’s social
work report shares that Mr. Thomas has attempted suicide several times (ECF 371, Ex. O, at 6–
7). While the exact nature of his mental health issues is hard to evaluate, given his decision not to
seek help from the Bureau of Prisons, those issues will not be entirely discounted. Considering
all his circumstances together, the court is satisfied that he has shown an extraordinary and
compelling reason for release. And considering Mr. Thomas’s rehabilitation, lack of signification
disciplinary infractions while incarcerated, and family and community support, the c ourt finds
that he is not a danger to the community under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
II. Section 3553(a) Factors
Demonstrating such a reason, however, does not entitle a defendant to early release . The
court must consider the factors under 18 USC 3553(a) and, as noted, the burden is on the
defendant to show that the 3553(a) factors support release. Mr. Thomas’s crime was extremely
serious. He committed a cold -blooded murder for pay, and he had at least one previous serious
conviction for assault. The need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to provide deterrence
and just punishment, and to promote respect for the law argue against too great a reduction in his
sentence. On the other hand, Mr . Thomas is now 50 years old, with few if any significant
infractions on his record. He has the promise of employment and family and community support
(ECF 371 Exs. B, C, K, M, S ), all of which reduces the risk of recidivism. The court finds that
Case 1:04-cr-00232-BAH Document 389 Filed 12/27/24 Page 7 of 8
8
Mr. Thomas has met his burden to show that the 3553(a) factors support release.
III. Conclusion
After consideration of all the relevant factors, Mr. Thomas’s sentence will be reduced to
35 years . Specifically, his sentences on Counts Two and Three will each be reduced to 420
months, concurrent, followed by concurrent terms of five years of supervised release.
A separate Order follows.
Date: December 27, 2024 BY THE COURT:
/S/ CATHERINE C. BLAKE
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge
Case 1:04-cr-00232-BAH Document 389 Filed 12/27/24 Page 8 of 8