United States v. Mateo

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CARLOS MATEO, Defendant.

Case No. 1:12-cr-127

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

February 3, 2021

Judge Susan J. Dlott

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Compassionate Release. (Doc. 122.) The United States opposes Defendant's Motion. (Doc. 125.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion will be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 19, 2013, Defendant Carlos Mateo entered into a plea agreement in this matter. (Doc. 57-1.) As part of the plea agreement, Mateo pled guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, Conspiracy to Possess Heroin With the Intent to Distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(i), and 846. (Id. at PageID 230.) The violation carried a minimum term of imprisonment of ten years and a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, a $10,000,000 fine, at least five years of supervised release, a mandatory $100 special assessment, and restitution. (Id.)

Pursuant to the Statement of Facts to which he admitted, between August 8, 2012 and November 7, 2012, Mateo conspired to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one kilogram of heroin. (Id. at PageID 238.) During that timeframe, Defendant regularly supplied heroin to his co-defendants Erick Caimona and Jorge Trinidad for distribution in the Southern District of Ohio in order to obtain money and other things of value. (Id.)

On December 11, 2013, Mateo was sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment and 8 years of supervised release. (Doc. 82.) At the Sentencing Hearing, the Court found that Mateo was a Career Offender but that his criminal history was overstated. (Doc. 84.) As a result, the Court reduced Mateo's criminal history category from VI to V and imposed a sentence of 180 months of imprisonment, which was a downward departure from the 262 months of imprisonment recommended by the Probation Officer. (Id.; Doc. 82.) Mateo is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution ("FCI") at Fort Dix, which is a minimum-security facility, and his anticipated release date is February 19, 2027. See Federal BOP, Find an Inmate, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited 1/28/2021).

On June 8, 2020, Mateo filed a motion for compassionate release. (Doc. 106.) On July 7, 2020, the Court dismissed Mateo's motion without prejudice to refiling for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. (Doc. 113.) On October 5, 2020, Defendant's counsel filed a "Notice of Intent" to supplement the Defendant's pro se motion. (Doc. 121.) On November 19, 2020, Defendant filed an Emergency Motion Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. 122.¹) The Government opposes Defendant's Motion. (Doc. 125.)

On August 26, 2020, Mateo submitted a "Compassionate Release/Reduction in Sentence" form in which he sought reduction of sentence based on asthma and anemia. (Doc. 122-1 at PageID 772-74.) On August 31, 2020, Warden David E. Ortiz denied the request via an "Inmate Request to Staff Response" form.² (Id. at PageID 776.) Mateo also submitted a RegionalAdministrative Remedy Appeal on September 17, 2020 and a Central Office Administrative Remedy Appeal on October 25, 2020. (Id. at PageID 778-80.)

In his Motion, Mateo argues that he is entitled to compassionate release because his medical conditions combined with his incarceration increase his risk of severe illness from COVID-19.³ For the reasons that follow, Mateo's Motion will be DENIED.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court lacks authority to resentence a defendant, except as permitted by statute. United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743, 748-749 (6th Cir. 2008). The compassionate release provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) were "intended to be a 'safety valve' to reduce a sentence in the 'unusual case in which the defendant's circumstances are so changed, such as by terminal illness, that it would be inequitable to continue the confinement of the prisoner.'" United States v. Ebbers, 432 F. Supp. 3d 421, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting S. Rep. 98-225, at 121 (1983)). A defendant seeking sentence reduction bears the burden of proving entitlement to compassionate release. Id. at 426; United States v. Hill, No. 5:14CR337, 2020 WL 5104477, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 31, 2020). Section 3582(c) provides as follows:

The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that—

(1) in any case—

(A) 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 withor without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that—

(i) 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).

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a mandatory claim-processing rule.⁴ United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 833-834 (6th Cir. 2020). Assuming that the inmate has exhausted administrative remedies, the district court must engage in the § 3852(c)(1)(A) analysis as follows: (1) the court must find that "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a reduction; (2) the court must find that a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the sentencing commission; and (3) the court must consider the relevant sentencing factors listed in § 3553(a). United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1101, 1106 (6th Cir. 2020). However, as to the second prong, the First Step Act rendered the only U.S. Sentencing Commission Policy Statement potentially applicable to motions for compassionate release—U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13—inapplicable to cases filed by federal inmates. Id. at 1109, 1111. Therefore, the district court has full discretion to define extraordinary and compelling reasons without reference to the policy statement in § 1B1.13. See id. at 1111; United States v. Elias, 984 F.3d 516, 519-20 (6th Cir. Jan. 6, 2021).

The § 3553 factors referenced in the statute include (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the defendant's history and characteristics; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense; (3) the need to protect the public from further crimes ofthe defendant; (4) the sentencing guideline range; and (5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records guilty of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553. These factors implicitly allow the Court to consider the amount of time served when determining if a reduction in sentence is appropriate. See United States v. Kincaid, 802 F. App'x 187, 188 (6th Cir. 2020). District courts are encouraged to be "explicit and particular with their factual reasoning" when they consider the § 3553(a) factors. Jones, 980 F.3d at 1113.

III. ANALYSIS

A. Extraordinary and Compelling Reason

Having found Defendant exhausted his administrative remedies, the Court now considers the merits of Defendant's Motion. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to surge inside and outside of correctional facilities. COVID-19 is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and was recognized as a pandemic in March 2020. "During the COVID-19 pandemic, courts have found extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release when an inmate shows both a particularized susceptibility to the disease and a particularized risk of contracting the disease at his prison facility." United States v. Provost, 474 F. Supp. 3d 819, 825 (E.D. Va. July 24, 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (granting motion for compassionate release).

Mateo argues that his medical conditions combined with the COVID-19 pandemic present extraordinary and compelling reasons for his early release. Based on the statistics from the Bureau of Prisons, FCI Fort Dix currently has 53 inmates and 32 staff who have tested positive for COVID-19, as well as 1,425 inmates and 45 staff recovered from COVID-19. 1 inmate and 0 staff deaths from COVID-19 have been reported at the facility. See Federal BOP, COVID-19 Coronavirus, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited 1/28/2021).

Defendant argues that he is at increased risk of serious illness from COVID-19 due to his medical conditions of anemia and chronic asthma. However, as best the Court could discern, the medical records attached to Defendant's Motion do not include either an asthma or anemia diagnosis, nor did the Defendant direct the Court to a specific record containing either diagnosis.⁵ According to his Motion, Defendant has been diagnosed with microcytic hypochromic anisocytosis anemia, which is a condition marked by low levels of red blood cells that are smaller and paler than normal, containing low levels of hemoglobin. (Doc. 122 at PageID 657-58.) In his affidavit, Mateo attests that he has suffered from chronic asthma since childhood and is prescribed an inhaler, including albuterol, to control his symptoms. (Doc. 122-1 at PageID 784.) However, he did not describe any medical conditions at the time he was interviewed for his Presentence Report ("PSR"). Mateo's medical records suggest he may have had low hemoglobin levels in 2017 and that he has small and pale red blood cells. (Doc. 122-1 at PageID 802-11; Doc. 126-1 at PageID 827.)

Moderate-to-severe asthma has been identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") as a condition that might increase an individual's risk of...