United States v. Beam

506 F.Supp.3d 1192

UNITED STATES of America

v.Jamie Leann BEAM

Case No. 4:17-cr-00463-MHH-GMB-1

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama.

Signed December 11, 2020

US Probation, United States Probation Office, USM, United States Marshal, US Attorney Jay E. Town, US Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, Laura D. Hodge, US Attorney's Office, Huntsville, AL, for United States of America.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

(COMPASSIONATE RELEASE)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Jamie Beam has filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) based on serious health concerns relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Doc. 227). Ms. Beam is serving a 168-month sentence for drug crimes. To evaluate Ms. Beam's motion, by way of background, we first describe Ms. Beam's trial court proceedings, Ms. Beam's sentence, and Ms. Beam's administrative effort to obtain compassionate release. Then, we review the standards that govern motions for compassionate release and the impact of the current pandemic on incarceration. Next, we consider Ms. Beam's health conditions and the extent to which those conditions make Ms. Beam vulnerable to serious outcomes if she should contract COVID-19. Finally, we evaluate Ms. Beam's request for compassionate release, applying the legal standards that govern these motions to determine whether Ms. Beam qualifies for conversion of her prison term to a special term of supervised release.

I.

Ms. Beam was arrested on federal drug crime charges on November 8, 2017. (Doc. 159, p. 2). On March 22, 2018, Ms. Beam pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and unlawful distribution of methamphetamine. There is a discrepancy between the description of the specific charges in Ms. Beam's plea agreement and in the discussion of charges during her plea hearing, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, in the description of the charges against her in the indictment, presentence investigation report, and judgment in this case. In the indictment, Ms. Beam was charged in three counts as follows: "conspir[acy] ... to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine," "distribut[ion of] 50 grams or more of methamphetamine," and "possess[ion] with intent to distribute 5 grams or more of methamphetamine." (Doc. 1, pp. 2–5).

In the plea agreement, the offenses concerning Ms. Beam are listed as: "Conspiracy to Distribute and Possession with Intent to Distribute More than 5 grams of Methamphetamine," "Possession with Intent to Distribute More than 50 grams of Methamphetamine," and "Possession with Intent to Distribute More than 50 grams of Methamphetamine." (Doc. 94, pp. 1–3).¹ Relying on the plea agreement, during Ms. Beam's change of plea hearing, the Court stated:

You have indicated that you want to plead guilty to Counts 1, 2, and 7 of the indictment. In Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment, you're charged with the crime of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 5 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S. Code, Sections 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A) and the crime of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S. Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A).

With respect to Count 7, in Count 7, you are charged with the crime of possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. That's a violation of 21 U.S. Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B).

(Doc. 214, pp. 5–7). Though the Court perpetuated the mistaken information that Ms. Beam was charged in Count 1 with respect to 5 grams of methamphetamine rather than 50 grams, the Court accurately explained the sentence Ms. Beam faced under Counts 1, 2, and 7. The Court stated that under Counts 1 and 2, the mandatory minimum sentence was not less than 20 years and that the maximum sentence was life, the supervised release period was at least 10 years, and the term of imprisonment on Count 7 was be a minimum of 10 years and a maximum term of life. (Doc. 214, p. 7). In the judgement, the offenses are listed as: "Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute 50 Grams or More of Methamphetamine," "Unlawful Distribution of 50 Grams or More of Methamphetamine," and "Possession with Intent to Distribute 5 Grams or More of Methamphetamine." (Doc. 162, p. 1).²

On August 10, 2018, the Court sentenced Ms. Beam to 168 months in prison. (Doc. 162, p. 2). Ms. Beam is imprisoned at FCI Aliceville in Alabama, which houses 1,278 inmates. FCI ALICEVILLE , FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS , https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/ali/ (last visited Dec. 2, 2020). Her current projected release date is August 16, 2030. Ms. Beam asserts that on May 15, 2020, she filed a BP-9 form with the warden of FCI Aliceville to request compassionate release. (Doc. 227, p. 5). She contends that her counselor returned the form to her and told her that she first had to make an informal complaint on regular paper before filing the BP-9. (Doc. 227, p. 5). On July 1, 2020, Ms. Beam made a second request for compassionate release to the warden on regular paper as instructed by her counselor, but she has not received a response. (Doc. 227, p. 5).

II.

Ms. Beam argues that her medical conditions "place her at increased risk for severe health consequences and death if she contracts COVID-19," creating extraordinary and compelling circumstances that warrant a modification of her sentence. (Doc. 227, p. 1). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b), a judgment of conviction that includes a sentence of imprisonment "constitutes a final judgment and may not be modified by a district court except in limited circumstances." Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 824, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (internal quotations omitted). Compassionate release is one such circumstance. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the provision that governs motions for compassionate release, a district court:

may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that ... the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that ... extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction ... and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission[.]

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). So, to achieve relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a federal prisoner must exhaust her administrative remedies and demonstrate that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a release, a sentence modification is consistent with the policy supporting compassionate release, and release is consistent with the sentencing factors identified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The United States believes that Ms. Beam has exhausted her administrative remedies. (Doc. 233, p. 1). The Court agrees; Ms. Beam has submitted to the warden at FCI Aliceville both a formal and an informal request for release, and she has not received a response. Therefore, the Court must consider whether Ms. Beam's medical conditions constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for a reduction in her sentence. Congress has not identified specific circumstances that rise to the level of "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for a sentence reduction, but U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1, the United States Sentencing Commission's policy statement relating to sentence reductions, sheds light on the issue.

The Commission has indicated that "a medical condition of the defendant [that] substantially reduces his ability to provide self-care in prison, (B) the advanced age of the defendant, and (C) the defendant's family circumstances" may constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. United States v. McCall , 465 F. Supp. 3d 1201, 1203 (M.D. Ala. 2020). The Commission also recognizes "a ‘catchall’ provision where the Director of the BOP finds [that] ‘other reasons’ exist that are ‘extraordinary and compelling.’ United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D)." McCall , 465 F. Supp. 3d at 1203. According to the Commission, before reducing a sentence, a district court must find that "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction" and that "the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.³

Ms. Beam argues that the spread of COVID-19 in prisons, the mismanagement of prison outbreaks by the Bureau of Prisons, and the inability to socially distance at FCI Aliceville, in combination with her underlying medical conditions present extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying her release from prison. (Docs. 227, 234). COVID-19 is "a novel severe acute respiratory illness" for which "there is no known cure, no effective treatment, and no vaccine." South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1613, 207 L.Ed.2d 154 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief). "Because people may be infected but asymptomatic, they may unwittingly infect others." South Bay United Pentecostal Church , 140 S. Ct. at 1613 (Roberts, C.J., concurring). The pandemic is now nearly one year old, and it "remains extraordinarily serious and deadly." Roman Catholic...