United States v. Coria

591 F.Supp.3d 250

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Sergio CORIA, Defendant.

Case No. 1:04-cr-20038-5

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division.

Signed March 17, 2022

Roy Kranz, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Bay City, MI, for Plaintiff.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE WITH PREJUDICE

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, United States District Judge

This matter is before this Court upon Defendant Sergio Coria's Motion for Compassionate Release, ECF No. 732. As explained hereafter, his Motion will be denied.

I.

In September 2017, through a Rule 11 plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), 846. ECF No. 651. In January 2018, Defendant was sentenced to 108 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. ECF No. 660.

In September 2019, Defendant filed a motion to vacate his sentence. ECF No. 665. It was denied in April 2020. ECF No. 688. He filed a motion for home confinement in May 2020 and a motion for release from custody in June 2020; both were denied in July 2020. ECF Nos. 694; 693; 696. In September 2020, he filed a motion for compassionate release, which was denied without prejudice five days later. ECF Nos. 704; 706. In December 2020, he filed another motion for compassionate release, which was denied with prejudice along with the September 2020 motion. ECF Nos. 712; 717. He filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial, which was also denied. ECF Nos. 718; 721.

Before this Court now is Defendant's third motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) —the seventh attempt to reduce his sentence to some extent. ECF No. 732. The Government opposes his motion. ECF No. 733.

As explained below, Defendant's third motion for compassionate release will be denied because he has demonstrated neither (1) an extraordinary and compelling reason for release, nor (2) that the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 warrant release.

II.

A motion for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires a two-part analysis.

The first part is exhaustion. A defendant may file a motion for a reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A) only after requesting a reduction from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and then either (1) "fully exhaust[ing] all administrative rights" or (2) waiting until "30 days [have elapsed] from the receipt of such a request by the warden." See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). This first step is a "mandatory claim-processing rule[ ]" that "must be enforced" if "properly invoked." United States v. Alam , 960 F.3d 831, 834 (6th Cir. 2020).

The second part involves the Sixth Circuit's three-step test:

At step one, a court must find whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction. At step two, a court must find whether such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. At step three, § 3582(c) [(1)(A)] instructs a court to consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction authorized by steps one and two is warranted in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.

United States v. Jones , 980 F.3d 1098, 1107–08 (6th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). If any of § 3582(c)(1)(A)'s three prerequisites are missing, this Court may deny the compassionate-release motion without addressing the other factors. United States v. Elias , 984 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2021).

III.

A.

The first issue is whether, before filing his Motion, Defendant requested compassionate release from the BOP and then either (1) received a denial and fully exhausted his administrative remedies or (2) received no response but waited at least 30 days before filing his motion. See 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Defendant requested compassionate release from the BOP on October 6, 2021. See ECF No. 732 at PageID.4802–03. Accordingly, Defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies with the BOP. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

B.

The next question is whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" justify reducing Defendant's sentence. See Jones , 980 F.3d at 1108. Although Congress did not define "extraordinary and compelling reasons," the United States Sentencing Commission has identified several "extraordinary and compelling" reasons. See U.S. SENT'G GUIDELINES MANUAL § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1 (U.S. SENT'G COMM'N 2018) (identifying certain medical conditions, ages, and family circumstances, including reasons determined by the Director of the BOP).

Although § 1B1.13 is inapplicable when "an imprisoned person files a motion for compassionate release." Jones , 980 F.3d at 1109, the district court may "consider [§ 1B1.13] as part of its discretionary inquiry into whether a case presents extraordinary and compelling reasons for release," United States v. Tomes , 990 F.3d 500, 503 n.1 (6th Cir. 2021). In this way, "federal judges may skip step two of the § 3582(c)(1)(A) inquiry and have full discretion to define ‘extraordinary and compelling’ without consulting the policy statement § 1B1.13." Jones , 980 F.3d at 1111.

But that discretion is not unfettered. See United States v. Hunter , 12 F.4th 555, 562 (6th Cir. 2021). Recently, the Sixth Circuit endorsed a textual analysis requiring courts to apply the ordinary meaning of the terms "extraordinary" and "compelling." See id. (noting that when § 3582(c) was enacted, "extraordinary" meant "most unusual, far from common, and having little or no precedent," and "compelling" meant "forcing, impelling, driving." (cleaned up) (quoting WEBSTER'S THIRD INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY: UNABRIDGED 463, 807 (1971))).

Consistent with Hunter , this Court must determine whether Defendant's reasons for a reduced sentence are "extraordinary" and "compelling," as that language is commonly understood. See id. ; see also United States v. Powell , No. 2:12-CR-20052-2, 2021 WL 613233, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 17, 2021) ("Several cases in the Eastern District of Michigan have adopted textual analyses to determine what reasons are ‘extraordinary and compelling[.]’ ") (collecting cases).

Defendant advances three reasons for compassionate release: (1) the CARES Act, (2) COVID-19, and (3) his five underlying health conditions. ECF No. 732 at PageID.4793–94. Whether considered independently or in combination, those reasons are neither extraordinary nor compelling.

i.

Defendant relies on the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act ("CARES Act") § 12003(b)(2), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281, 516 (Mar. 27, 2020) to be his first extraordinary and compelling reason for release. Other than a purported "broader latitude," Defendant does not explain, to any extent, how the CARES Act is an extraordinary or compelling reason for release. ECF No. 732 at PageID.4794. The Government explains that the CARES Act "temporarily permits the Bureau of Prisons to ‘lengthen the maximum amount of time for which [it] is authorized to place a prisoner in home confinement’ during the Covid-19 pandemic." ECF No. 733 at PageID.4812–13 (quoting the CARES Act).

As the Sixth Circuit explained, Congress intended the CARES Act to be "an alternative to compassionate release." United States v. Alam , 960 F.3d 831, 836 (6th Cir. 2020). To that end, "the Attorney General has instructed the Bureau of Prisons to make the most of this expanded power by placing in home confinement ‘all inmates whom [the Bureau] deem[s] suitable candidates.’ " Id. (quoting Increasing Use of Home Confinement at Institutions Most Affected by COVID-19 , Office of the Attorney General (Apr. 3, 2020)).

This Court has "no authority either to determine the place of confinement for a custodial inmate or to direct the BOP in making that determination." United States v. Hill , No. 16-20772, 2020 WL 7240901, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 9, 2020) Indeed, "under section 12001(b)(2) [of the CARES Act and 18 U.S.C. § 3642(c)(2)], ‘[d]esignation of an inmate's place of confinement, including placement in home confinement, rests within the absolute discretion of the BOP.’ " United States v. Ball , No. 14-20117, 2020 WL 4816197, at *6 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 19, 2020) (quoting the CARES Act); see also United States v. Oliver , No. 17-20489, 2020 WL 2768852, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 28, 2020) ("Because decisions about where a prisoner will serve his federal sentence are relegated to the United States Bureau of Prisons (‘BOP’), with no mechanism for review by the sentencing court, this Court lacks jurisdiction to transfer Oliver to home confinement.").

For this reason, the CARES Act is neither an extraordinary nor compelling reason for compassionate release. And this Court cannot separately grant the relief Defendant seeks under the CARES Act. See United States v. McWherter , No. 15-20040, 2020 WL 6469936, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2020).

ii.

Defendant cites the COVID-19 pandemic as an extraordinary and compelling reason for release from prison. ECF No. 732 at PageID.4793–94.

The CDC maintains that the COVID-19 vaccines "are highly effective at preventing severe disease and death, including against the Delta variant." See Delta Variant: What We Know About the Science , CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html [https://perma.cc/C8SK-RJAA]. Similarly, the CDC states that the "[c]urrent vaccines are expected to protect against severe illness, hospitalizations, and deaths due to infection with the Omicron variant." Omicron Variant: What You Need to Know , CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/omicron-variant.html [https://perma.cc/SVG4-XQM8].

Despite its adverse effects on Michigan's prisoners, several courts have found that COVID-19 is neither extraordinary nor compelling for purposes of § 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. Burlingame , No. 1:15-CR-20042, 586 F.Supp.3d 705, 711–12 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2021) ; see United States v. Bell , No. 18-20127, 2021 WL 4148251, at *2 (E.D....