United States v. Carroll

545 F.Supp.3d 674

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Andre CARROLL, Defendant.

No. CR17-1039-LTS

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division.

Signed June 22, 2021

Dan Chatham, US Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff.

Cory Goldensoph, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant.

ORDER

Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before me on defendant Andre Carroll's pro se motion (Doc. 77) and amended motion (Doc. 79), filed through counsel, for compassionate release. The Government has filed a response (Doc. 81). Oral argument is not necessary. See Local Rule 7(c).

II. BACKGROUND

On September 20, 2018, I sentenced Carroll to 120 months’ imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin and a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of fentanyl near a protected location following a conviction for a prior felony drug offense in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), 841(b)(1)(C), 846, 851 and 860(a). Doc. 74. Carroll is 54 years old. According to the online Bureau of Prisons (BOP) inmate locator, he is incarcerated at Springfield MCFP in Springfield, Missouri, and has a projected release date of March 31, 2026.

III. COMPASSIONATE RELEASE STANDARDS

A court's ability to modify a sentence after it has been imposed is extremely limited. One way a court may modify a sentence is through "compassionate release" as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which was recently modified by the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA). See Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603. In the past, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) permitted a court to reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment only upon the motion of the Director of Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The FSA modified § 3582(c)(1)(A) such that a defendant may now directly petition the court "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." See Mohrbacher v. Ponce , No. CV18-00513, 2019 WL 161727, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019) (discussing modifications made to § 3582(c)(1)(A) by the FSA); see also United States v. Perez-Asencio , No. CR18-3611, 2019 WL 626175, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2019).

If a defendant fully exhausts administrative remedies, the court may, upon motion of the defendant, reduce the defendant's sentence, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to the extent they are applicable, if the court finds that:

(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or

(ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years in prison, pursuant to a sentence imposed under section 3559(c), for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is currently imprisoned, and a determination has been made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as provided under section 3142(g);

And that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission ...

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Carroll does not meet the requirements of § 3582(c)(1)(A)(ii). He is under 70 years of age and has not served at least 30 years in prison pursuant to a sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c). Doc. 70 at 2. Thus, Carroll's only possible avenue for relief is § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

The starting point in determining what constitutes "extraordinary and compelling reasons" under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) is the Sentencing Guideline discussing compassionate release issued by the United States Sentencing Commission. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (U.S. Sentencing Comm'n 2018); see also United States v. Hall , No. CR98-7, 2019 WL 6829951, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 13, 2019) ; United States v. Rivernider , No. CR10-222, 2019 WL 3816671, at *2 (D. Conn. Aug. 14, 2019). The Guideline provides that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist in the following circumstances:

(A) Medical Condition of the Defendant.—

(i) The defendant is suffering from a terminal illness (i.e., a serious and advanced illness with an end of life trajectory). A specific prognosis of life expectancy (i.e., a probability of death within a specific time period) is not required. Examples include metastatic solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced dementia.

(ii) The defendant is—

(I) suffering from a serious physical or medical condition,

(II) suffering from a serious functional or cognitive impairment, or

(III) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of the aging process,

that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.

(B) Age of the Defendant.—The defendant (i) is at least 65 years old; (ii) is experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process; and (iii) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less.

(C) Family Circumstances.—

(i) The death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant's minor child or minor children.

(ii) The incapacitation of the defendant's spouse or registered partner when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for the spouse or registered partner.

(D) Other Reasons.—As determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, there exists in the defendant's case an extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination with, the reasons described in subdivisions (A) through (C).

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1.

This Guideline predates the FSA and has "not been amended to reflect that, under the FSA, a defendant may now move for compassionate release after exhausting administrative remedies." Rivernider , 2019 WL 3816671, at *2. Courts are split on whether the policy statement is binding because it predates the FSA's changes to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A number of district courts have concluded that Guideline § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1 does not restrain a court's assessment of whether extraordinary and compelling reasons exist to release a defendant. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez , 424 F. Supp. 3d 674, 681 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ; United States v. Urkevich , No. CR03-37, 2019 WL 6037391, at *3 (D. Neb. Nov. 14, 2019) ; United States v. Brown , 411 F. Supp. 3d 446, 451 (S.D. Iowa 2019) ; United States v. Fox , No. CR14-03, 2019 WL 3046086, at *3 (D. Me. July 11, 2019) ; United States v. Beck , 425 F. Supp. 3d 573, 579 (M.D.N.C. 2019) ; United States v. Cantu , 423 F. Supp. 3d 345, 352 (S.D. Tex. 2019). Other courts have concluded that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist only if they are included in the Guideline. See, e.g., United States v. Lynn , No. CR89-0072, 2019 WL 3805349, at *4 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 13, 2019).

As I have previously stated, I agree with those courts that have found that although the Guideline provides helpful guidance on what constitutes extraordinary and compelling reasons, it is not conclusive given the recent statutory changes. See United States v. Schmitt , No. CR12-4076-LTS, 2020 WL 96904, at *3 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 8, 2020) ; see also Rodriguez , 424 F. Supp. 3d at 682 (Congress knew that the BOP rarely granted compassionate release requests prior to the FSA, and the purpose of the FSA is to increase the number of compassionate release requests granted by allowing defendants to file motions in district courts directly even after the BOP denies their request); Brown , 411 F. Supp. 3d at 451 (same).¹

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Carroll submitted an administrative request for compassionate release on April 18, 2020, requesting release in light of debilitating medical issues. Doc. 80-1. On April 30, 2020, his warden denied the request. Doc. 80-2. He filed his pro se motion in October 2020 and his amended motion, through counsel, in May 2021. I find that Carroll has exhausted his administrative remedies.

B. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons

Carroll alleges, and BOP records indicate, that he suffers from numerous health problems, including: (1) congestive heart failure ; (2) chronic kidney disease ; (3) type 2 diabetes with neuropathy ; (4) morbid obesity ; (5) hypertension ; (6) hyperlipidemia ; (7) hypoxia ;² (8) acute respiratory failure; (9) asthma ; (10) osteoarthritis ; (11) osteopenia ;³ (12) nerve pain; (13) neuralgia neuritis ;⁴ (14) metabolic encephalopathy ;⁵ and (15) degenerative disc disease. Doc. 80 at 8–14; Doc. 80-3 at 53, 136–37, 368, 514, 572–73, 580, 583. The Government does not dispute that Carroll suffers from these conditions but denies that they constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying early release. The Government argues that his conditions have responded well to treatment and that he is able to maintain independent living. Doc. 81 at 6. The Government also notes that he has not always complied with BOP medical recommendations and has refused or failed to show up for hygiene assistance. Id. at 7.

Carroll's overall physical condition appears to be deteriorating. His ailments are numerous and increasingly serious. Prior to sentencing, he was hospitalized several times in 2016 and 2017 due to chronic kidney disease or acute respiratory failure. Doc. 70 at 17–18, ¶¶ 63–65. This trend has continued during Carroll's incarceration. A February 2019 record indicates he had been recently hospitalized, during which he lost 60 pounds of water weight and later lost consciousness due to low blood pressure. Doc. 80-3 at 577. During a November 2019 hospitalization, he was classified as "critically ill" for two days, placed on a ventilator and was hospitalized for eight days in total. Doc. 80-3 at 79, 83, 381, 517. His poor heart function and respiration have started to affect his cognitive...