govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_01-cr-00538-9

Not for Publication 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
ERIK JOHNSON, 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
Crim. No. 01-538 
 
OPINION & ORDER 
 
 
John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J. 
This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant Erik Johnson’s motion to reduce 
his sentence pursuant to the First Step Act (t he “Act”). D.E. 242. The Government filed 
opposition, D.E. 253, to which Defendant replied, D. E. 255. The Court then ordered additional 
briefing, D.E. 256, which the parties submitted, D.E. 257, 258. 
The Court previously found that Defendant was eligible for relief under the Act. D.E. 259. 
Because the Third Circuit issued relevant decisions after the parties submitted their initial briefing, 
the Court permitted the pa rties to submit additional informat ion as to whether the Court should 
exercise its discretion under the Act and reduce Defendant’s sentence. Id. at 6. Both Defendant, 
D.E. 260, and the Government, D.E. 261, filed submissions in response. Defendant then submitted 
additional information, D.E. 262, 263. The Cour t reviewed the partie s’ submissions and 
considered the motion without oral argument pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 1.1 and Local Civil 
Rule 78.1(b). For the reasons that follow, the Court does not reduce Defendant’s sentence. PageID:
<pageID>
2 
 
I. BACKGROUND 
A. The Underlying Offense 
Johnson was one of the original leaders of the Third World Crips, a violent drug-trafficking 
gang that operated in the John W. Hyatt Court Housing Project (“Hyatt Court”) in Newark, New 
Jersey. United States v. Johnson, 89 F. App’x 781, 783-84 (3d Cir. 2004). For close to a decade, 
the gang used violence to sell large quantities of heroin, crack, and other illicit drugs. As the Third 
Circuit explained: “Gang members shot, beat, and attacked residents with dogs.” United States v. 
Johnson, 745 F. App’x 464, 464 (3d Cir. 2018). At times, the gang limited residents’ access to 
their own apartments and required residents to wear gang-approved colors, retaliating against those 
who did not comply. PSR ¶¶ 27, 29, 56, 63, 77-78, 81. 
Johnson was particularly vicious. Judge Wolin , the trial judge, found Johnson to be the 
most “dominant” of the gang members who used violence. Nov. 1, 2002 Sent. Tr. (“Sent. Tr.”) at 
12. For instance, when the gang suspected a woman of stealing narcotics, Johnson and other gang 
members “severely assaulted” her, PSR ¶ 79, which included holding her face against a hot radiator 
long enough to remove the pigment from that area of her face. Johnson, 89 F. App’x at 784. On 
another occasion, when a pregnant woman was thought to have stolen drugs, Johnson stripped her 
and then kicked and punched her. PSR ¶ 85. Johnson then sicced a pit bull on the woman, causing 
severe bites and injuries to her lower body. Id. Another time, in respon se to suspicions that a 
firearm had been stolen, Johnson pistol whip ped a woman and slammed her head against a 
telephone booth. PSR ¶¶ 57-58. And on yet another occasion, a suspected informant entered Hyatt 
Court. Johnson ordered another gang member to shoot the “snitch” – in a location in which young 
children were playing basketball. PSR ¶¶ 72- 76, 86-91. The victim was shot in the leg, and 
Johnson then punched him in the back of the head. PSR ¶¶ 72-76, 86-91, 112. PageID:
<pageID>
3 
 
Following a jury trial in 2002, Johnson was convict ed of a conspiracy to distribute, and 
possess with intent to distribute, more than one k ilogram of heroin and more than five kilograms 
of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (contrary to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)). 
He was also found guilty of distribution of, and po ssession with intent to distribute, heroin in 
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Because of a prior state drug c onviction, his adjusted 
offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was forty-five, which when combined 
with a criminal history ca tegory of IV, resulted in a Guidelines range of life imprisonment. He 
also faced a statutory mandato ry minimum sentence of twenty years under 21 U.S.C. § 
841(b)(1)(A). On November 1, 2002, Johnson was sentenced to life imprisonment on one count 
and 240 months on the other, which was run concurrent to the life sentence. Sent. Tr. at 13. The 
Third Circuit affirmed Johnson’ s conviction and sentence. Johnson, 89 F. App’x at 788. The 
Circuit later affirmed the denial of J ohnson’s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Johnson v. 
United States, 294 F. App’x 709 (3d Cir. 2008). 
B. Relevant Evidence after Sentencing 
During the first thirteen years of his incarceration, Johns on incurred nine disciplinary 
infractions. In July 2009, Johnson was discip lined for “possessing a dangerous weapon,” 
specifically a five-and-one-half-inch sharpened piece of metal. D.E. 260-2 at 11. Then, in 
November 2013, Johnson was disciplined for orchestrating a “narcotics drug introduction scheme” 
using coded language. Id. at 1. His last disciplinary infractions were in 2014. 
Johnson has also taken positive steps while incarcerated. He received his GED, id. at 18, 
his associate’s degree, D.E. 263, Ex. A. He has completed numerous education courses covering 
a variety of topics, from tradi tional study (English, history, psyc hology) to behavioral (drug 
education and anger management). D.E. 260-2 . at 13-17. Due to these constructive efforts, PageID:
<pageID>
4 
 
Johnson has moved from high-security prisons to a medium-security institution. He also works as 
a suicide watch companion and GED tutor. Fina lly, a recreation speciali st at FCI Ray Brook 
reports that Defendant is a very good worker, who also uses downtime to study and enrich himself. 
D.E. 264-1. 
Johnson explains that when he was first incarcerated, he “was very upset, bitter, confused 
and upset on how a person can be found guilty and sentenced to life with out (sic) physical evidence 
of the 5 kilograms of crack cocaine & 1 kilogram of heroin.” D.E. 260-1 at 1. He continues that 
it “[r]eally took many years to accept and come to grips that a person can really do a life sentence 
with out (sic) being caught with drugs and also be found guilty with out (sic) no (sic) drugs being 
shown to the jury.” Id. Johnson explains that he is now forty-six, and he looks at life differently 
because he is now a grandfather. Id. at 3. He notes that when he was in his twenties, he thought 
that being a “gangster was a man.” Id. He now regrets the time he has lost with his family and 
believes that he has rehabilitated himself. Id. at 3-4. 
C. Prior Sentence Reduction 
In 2017, following the passage of Amendment 7821 to the Guidelines, Johnson moved for 
a sentence reduction. D.E. 224. As a result of the amendment, his Guidelines range changed from 
a mandatory range of life imprisonment to 360 months to life. Johnson sought a sentence of thirty 
years, arguing the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in support. Id. Defendant also noted that he 
had been incident free for over three years, pa rticipated in BOP programming, and had recently 
 
1 “In November 2014, Amendment 782 to the Un ited States Sentencing Guidelines became 
effective. Amendment 782 reduced by 2 levels the base offense levels of various drug quantities.” 
United States v. Easter , 975 F.3d 318, 320 (3d Cir. 2020) (cit ing U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 
Manual app. C, amend. 782 (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2014)). PageID:
<pageID>
5 
 
started history and economics classes. D.E. 226. On August 18, 2017, Judge Linares granted the 
motion and reduced Johnson’s sentence to 480 months. D.E. 227. 
Johnson then made the current motion after the First Step Act was enacted. 
II. LEGAL STANDARD & ANALYSIS 
Having previously found that Johnson is eligible under Sec tion 404 of the First Step Act 
of 2018, D.E. 259, the Court must ne xt decide whether to exercise its discretion and grant him a 
reduced sentence. The Third Circuit has spoken to a court’s duty in this regard. In United States 
v. Easter, 975 F.3d 318, 323, 326 (3d Cir. 2020), the Circ uit ruled that when deciding a motion 
pursuant to the First Step Act, a district court must consider any applicable factors under 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3553(a). The Easter court added that when conducting its analysis, the district judge should also 
consider any relevant “post-sentencing developments[.]” Id. at 327. The court in Easter, however, 
also indicated that a defendant is not “entitled to a plenary resentencing hearing at which he would 
be present.” Id. at 326. 
 Here, the nature and circumstances of th e offense strongly countenance against granting 
Johnson’s motion. In addition to the long-running drug operation of which Johnson was convicted, 
the Court cannot overlook the atro cious violence that Johnson enga ged in during the conspiracy. 
He was involved in holding a woman’s face against a hot radiator causing her face to lose pigment 
in that area. He stripped a pregnant woman, beat her, and then caused a dog to attack her. He 
slammed another woman’s head off of a telephone booth. Johnson caused a suspected informant 
to be shot (with small children in the area) and then beat him. This unvarnished brutality strongly 
weighs against granting the motion. 
In addition, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities also militates against 
granting Defendant’s motion. He was convicted of a heroin conspiracy that, standing alone, would PageID:
<pageID>
6 
 
subject him to the same Guidelines’ range. And the jury also found Johnson’s conspiracy involved 
more than five kilograms of crack cocaine. The Court found th at Johnson was eligible under the 
First Step Act because eligibility was based on th e statute of conviction ra ther than the offense 
conduct. D.E. 259 at 4 (citing United States v. Jackson, 964 F.3d 197, 206, 207 (3d Cir. 2020)). 
Nevertheless, the Court can consider Johnson’s actual conduct in deciding whether to exercise its 
discretion, and the actual amount of crack cocaine would not result in a change to Johnson’s 
Guidelines. 
As to Johnson’s personal history and characteristics, there are facts that cut both ways. In 
Johnson’s favor, he obtained his GED and his asso ciate’s degree, he has taken numerous classes 
and programs offered by the Bureau of Prisons, a nd he works in positions that contribute to the 
welfare of the institution. He has also remained discipline free for about eight years. 
On the other hand, his disciplinary infractions continued until he was about thirty-nine and 
covered a span of approximately twelve years. Such improper behavior as Johnson closed in on 
age forty is inexcusable. Indeed, in 2013, Johnson was disciplined for being involved in a scheme 
to bring drugs into the prison. And he was also disciplined for having a dangerous weapon. Thus, 
while Johnson’s more recent behavior supports his motion, his many years of improper conduct 
undercut his position. 
Notably, Johnson attempts to expl ain his bad behavior for over twelve years in prison by 
explaining that he was “very bitter” and “confused” based on a fundamental misunderstanding of 
admissible evidence in a criminal case. In othe r words, Johnson was not remorseful or repentant 
for his conduct. Instead, his anger was fueled over a misconception of the evidence necessary to 
convict him. He certainly has expressed no remorse for the persons that he beat and hurt. Instead, 
the only person he expresses remors e for is himself. The Court is not convi nced that such an PageID:
<pageID>
7 
 
attitude is compatible with his claimed rehabilitation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown, 
It is on this 12th day of January 2022 hereby 
ORDERED that Johnson’s motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to the First 
Step Act, D.E. 242., is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part . As previously decided, the 
Court finds that Johnson is eligible for relief under the First Step Act, D.E. 259; and it is further 
ORDERED that Johnson’s motion for a reduced sentence under the First Step Act is 
DENIED. 
 
 
__________________________ 
John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J. PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight