Defendant's Reply to Government's Response in Opposition — United States v. Lewis Reed

Record facts

Summary

Defendant Lewis Reed's reply to the United States' response (Doc. 175) opposing his motion for sentence reduction, in United States v. Lewis Reed, No. 4:22-CR-00297-2 SRC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; the certificate of service is dated February 26, 2024. The reply argues that under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and § 1B1.10 the retroactive guideline change would make his range 30-37 months rather than 37-46 months. It argues that Eighth Circuit cases cited by the government are not analogous, cites his post-sentencing conduct and a PATTERN score of -4, and disputes the government's references to potential losses and a tax abatement. It asks the Court to reduce the sentence under Amendment 821 to 30 months or to a sentence within the new range.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
EASTERN DIVISION 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION 
 
COMES NOW Defendant, Lewis Reed, through his appointed attorney, Nicole M. 
Johnston, and hereby replies to the United States’ Response to Defendant’s Motion for 
Sentence Reduction. Doc. 175.   
In its Response, the United States admits that the Defendant is eligible for a 
sentence reduction if: "(1) a retroactive amendment would lower the Defendant's original 
guideline range, and (2) the Defendant did not previously receive a sentence at or below 
the bottom of the amended range (except for substantial assistance).”  Doc. 175 at 3. The 
Defendant's sentence on December 6, 2022, meets these criteria. Doc. 166 at 2.  
The Government claims a reduction is not warranted under Section 3553(a) because 
"[T]he Defendant's offense conduct was egregious, involving a significant breach of public 
trust, and a lesser sentence would undermine the goal of general deterrence for other 
public officials" Doc. 175 at 1. However, 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(6), also allows for a reduction, 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
LEWIS REED, 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
)    
 
) 
) 
) 
)   4:22-CR-00297-2 SRC  
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 

2 
 
“for the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar 
records who have been found guilty of similar conduct…” 
The Response further justifies a reduction in the Defendant's sentence, 
"Specifically, the court must . . . weigh public-safety concerns and may consider relevant 
post-sentencing conduct," good or bad. United States v. Darden, 910 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th 
Cir. 2018) (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)) Doc. 175 at 4.  The Defendant’s post-
sentencing conduct is untarnished, and the Government has yet to argue that the 
Defendant is a threat to the community. 
The Eighth Circuit cases cited by the Government on page 5 of its Response are not 
analogous to the facts of Defendant’s case. The Eighth Circuit was justified in its findings 
in the listed cases. For example, in United States v. Granados, 830 F.3d 840 (8th Cir. 
2016), the Defendant had a significant criminal history and used firearms during the 
commission of his crime and did not have a recidivism score of less than zero. In 
Granados, “The court nonetheless concluded that it is ... clear that Granados is not one of 
the nonviolent offenders contemplated by the Sentencing Commission when it approved 
the Amendment. He is not one of the people the Department of Justice had in mind when 
supporting the Amendment's retroactivity…The court determined that afford[ing] 
Granados relief would be inconsistent with the policy statements of the Sentencing 
Commission as well as the sentencing factors enumerated by Congress. The nature and 
circumstances of this case and public safety considerations preclude this court from 
granting a sentence reduction.” Id. The pre-sentencing behavior, criminal history, post-
sentencing behavior, violence during offense, prison conduct and community safety make 

3 
 
these cases immaterial given the vast differences in Defendant’s pre and post sentencing 
behavior, case facts, lack of criminal history, lack of history of violence, and lack of 
violence in the instant case. 
In addition to the above reasons, Defendant’s PATTERN score, which measures 
federal prisoners for their risk of recidivism or re-offending, started at -1 and has now 
decreased to a -4. The Defendant has been a model inmate, volunteering to teach math 
and tutoring other inmates for their G.E.D., volunteering in the kitchen and 
administrative offices, counseling other inmates on how to obtain legal employment 
leading to careers, and enrolling in as many educational opportunities the institution has 
available. This model behavior has caused a steady decrease in Defendant’s PATTERN 
score which now stands at -4. Defendant is now considered to have less than zero (0) risk 
of re-offending. Attempts to link Defendant to “accomplices” fails to consider Defendant’s 
crime and subsequent conduct independently. 
The Response references Defendant's position as President of the Board of 
Alderman and his respective position on the "All Powerful Board of Estimate and 
Apportionment” in a seeming attempt to link this position to longtime nefarious activities.  
Doc. 175 at 6. The Defendant's public service career lasted over twenty years with an 
unblemished record.  Ostensibly, the Government’s attempts to argue Defendant’s 
criminal conduct extends into the early years of his career is simply conjecture.  
The Defendant requested a reduction in his sentence because the law has changed. 
Moreover, this change mandates that the revised sentencing guidelines be made 
retroactive. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) and policy statement § 1B1.10. Defendant qualifies for 

4 
 
this reduction. As noted in Defendant’s Amended Motion filed on February 2, 2024, had 
these guidelines been in place on December 6, 2022, the sentencing range would have been 
30-37 months, not 37-46 months. Doc. 172 at 3. The Government opposes the Defendant's 
motion by asking this Court to impose a sentence above the current guidelines. At 
sentencing, the Government did not request this Court impose a sentence above the 
guidelines.   
The Government contends maintaining the status quo will keep not only this 
Defendant but individuals in similar positions of public service from engaging in criminal 
corruption. Doc. 175 at 6. However, any future public servant charged with the same crime 
would be sentenced to the new guidelines, not the previous guidelines used to sentence the 
Defendant. The Government's Response asks this Court to apply the law differently to 
similarly situated defendants. 
The Government also asks this Court to consider losses that were never sustained 
nor contemplated by this Court. Doc. 175 at 7. The United States asks this Court to look at 
losses that could have happened to the residents of the City of St. Louis in excess of 
$1,000,000. Id. These losses never occurred. If the Court extrapolates this logic, loss 
amounts for fraudulent matters would be incalculable since the Court would need to 
consider the other possible frauds the offender may have perpetrated on others had he 
been left unindicted. Instead, this Court determined that restitution was not applicable 
and could be recouped in the form of a fine. See Statement of Reasons, Doc. 166-2 at 3.  
The Government claims the Defendant's scheme cost the City of St. Louis, 
particularly the St. Louis Public School System, lost funding.  Before any tax abatement 

5 
 
can be considered by the BOA, it must be approved though a lengthy process by multiple 
independent agencies such as the St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC).  First, the 
SLDC Board of Directors reviews and approves any application. That approved application 
is then forwarded to Land Clearance and Redevelopment Agency (L.C.R.A.). Before the 
LCRA will approve a project, it goes through a public hearing.  After this process is 
completed, the SLDC and LCRA draft a board bill and the alderman from that ward 
carries the bill through the legislative process.  Ordinances, other than one for a tax 
abatement, go through a similar process and eventually ALL approved bills are signed by 
the President of the Board of Alderman and the mayor.   
When the Board President is working to pass a bill, they perform certain actions to 
assure the passage of the bill including writing letters of support to government agencies, 
lobbying the other board of alderman members, requesting a hearing from the committee 
chairman, contacting committee members asking for their support of the bill, attending 
committee hearing, speaking on behalf of the bill, voting for it in committee, and reaching 
out to neighborhood organizations to gain support for a bill.  Defendant did not perform 
any of these actions for the tax abatement referenced in the Government’s Response on 
page 7.   
Currently, residents of the City of St. Louis are reaping the benefits of Defendant's 
work for the city as evidenced by the recent Rams settlement, including billions in new 
economic development activity resulting in jobs allowing many families the ability to lift 
themselves out of poverty; established the Washington Ave loft and entertainment district 
bringing loft living to downtown St. Louis; led the Board to adopt the measure which set 

6 
 
the stage for St. Louis Soccer stadium and franchise; led the re-accreditation of the St. 
Louis City public school system; led the Board of Aldermen amidst protest to place a 
proposal before the NFL which gave St. Louis standing in court resulting in nearly a 
billion dollar settlement for the region and even more restitution for PSL owners; worked 
with local and federal partners to keep the National Geo Spatial Agency (NGA) in St. 
Louis and utilizing its footprint to set the stage for greater economic future for families 
who reside in North St Louis, small businesses, and residential development; lined up 
votes to deliver the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to provide millions annually to 
families for rental, mortgage, utility and tutoring support; passed laws requiring 
government transparency to allow city residents access to meetings and budget hearings; 
and brought Nextdoor to every neighborhood throughout St. Louis to amplify citizen’s 
voices to encourage more government accountability. City residents are still benefiting 
from Defendant's work today. 
The Defendant was charged with serious crimes for which he is currently being 
punished. The seriousness of Defendant’s crime isn’t lost on Defendant nor counsel.  The 
Defendant not only has lost a career in public service he spent over twenty years making, 
but he also lost a significant portion of his pension, his reputation has been forever tainted 
and his family has been financially devastated.  By the time he completes his sentence, he 
will be over 62 years of age requiring him to work well beyond retirement years to keep 
pace with basic living expenses in retirement.  To say that this has been a life altering 
event in the Defendant’s life would be an understatement.  

7 
 
WHEREFORE, Defendant reaffirms his request for a sentence reduction under 
Amendment 821. It is respectfully requested that the Court enter an amended Judgment 
reducing Defendant’s sentence to 30 months imprisonment or to a sentence lower than 45 
months but within the new range of 30-37 months.  
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
/s/ Nicole M. Johnston 
 
Nicole M. Johnston, #68749MO 
 
P.O. Box 440143 
 
St. Louis, Missouri 63144 
 
(314) 440-2548 
 
nicolejohnston5@gmail.com 
 
 
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT 
 
 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
 
I hereby certify that on February 26, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 
of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the 
Office of the United States Attorney.

File and source

File

collins_sba_rrf__docket-63355616__doc-176__id-387225379__Reply_to_Response.pdf

Size

84,684 bytes

SHA-256

2ec96a5e145935c6594fdee351fe0791eeabd507c7fa2247aecfe98773379da8

Our copy

collins_sba_rrf__docket-63355616__doc-176__id-387225379__Reply_to_Response.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com