United States v. Mojica-Rivera

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JUAN M. MOJICA-RIVERA, Defendant.

Criminal No. 96-39-1 (MAJ/BJM)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico

April 30, 2024

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BRUCE J. MCGIVERIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant Juan M. Mojica Rivera (“Mojica”) was convicted of one count of bank robbery resulting in death, two counts of use of firearms in the commission of violent crimes, one count of armed carjacking resulting in death, one count of being a fugitive in possession of firearms, and one count of possession of semi-automatic assault weapons, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e), 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 2119(3), 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and 18 U.S.C § 922(v)(1), respectively. Docket (“Dkt.”) 337. On August 23, 2001, this court sentenced him to life imprisonment Dkt. 339. Mojica seeks to have this court reduce his sentence and grant a compassionate release. Dkt. 878; 888. The government has opposed. Dkt. 885.

This court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). This matter was referred to me for a report and recommendation. Dkt. 881. For the following reasons, the court should DENY Mojica's motion for compassionate release.

BACKGROUND

Mojica is a 50-year-old male born on July 8, 1973. Dkt. 337 at 2. As a juvenile, he committed a felony offense and was placed on probation for three years. Id. at 16. In 1992, when Mojica was 19, he pled guilty to two violations of the Puerto Rico Weapons Law for possession of and transporting a loaded firearm. Id. at 17. In 1996, at age 22, Mojica was charged with firearms violations, possession of a stolen vehicle, robbery aggravated assault, attempted murder, conspiracy, aggravated damages, and first-degree murder. Id. at 18-25. The state court sentenced him to 140 years for first-degree murder, and twenty years for the other charges. Id.

In the present case, Mojica was sentenced to life imprisonment as to Counts One and Three, 120 months as to Count Two, 240 months as to Count Four, 120 months as to Count Five, and 60 months as to Count Six. Dkt. 339 at 1. Mojica, along with his codefendants, robbed over $50,000 from a Banco Popular in Orocovis while masked and heavily armed. Dkt. 337 at 5. During their escape, they used an elderly man as a human shield and opened fire on the police. Id. During the shootout, the defendants shot and seriously wounded two officers. Id. at 6.

The defendants then boarded a stolen getaway vehicle and sped away while still firing their weapons indiscriminately. Id. They later carjacked another vehicle and abandoned their getaway vehicle. Id. This led to a high-speed chase in which the defendants fired at police officers and other vehicles, seriously wounding two other police officers. Id. Two of the defendants were in turn wounded during the shootout and one later died from the sustained head injury. Id. Some of the defendants including Mojica, fled after crashing the vehicle but were later apprehended. Id. Mojica had an AK-47 assault rifle at the time of his arrest. Id. at 7. While searching the carjacked vehicle, police officers found other firearms, ammunition, and the cash robbed from the bank. Id.

The First Circuit affirmed Mojica's sentence and conviction. See United States v. Mojica-Rivera, 435 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2006). A petition to the Supreme Court was subsequently denied. See Mojica-Rivera v. United States, 547 U.S. 1032 (2006). This court also denied post-conviction relief. See Mojica-Rivera v. United States, No. CIV. 07-1283 (SEC), 2010 WL 1728358 (D.P.R. Apr. 26, 2010). Mojica has now served more than twenty years of his sentence.

In his initial filing, Mojica alleges he is eligible for compassionate release because he is currently serving an unusually long sentence, per U.S.S.G. 1B1.13(b)(6). He argues his sentence must be reduced due to changes in sentencing law, particularly that the jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt whether his conduct resulted in death to impose a life sentence. Dkt. 878 at 1314 (citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)). Moreover, Mojica argues he would not have received the consecutive sentence for violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) given the amendments made by the First Step Act. Id.

In response, the government agrees Mojica would not be subject to a life sentence for the armed carjacking charge, Count Three, as the jury made no finding that death resulted, and argues the Count Four stacked sentence would be grossly disproportionate to what would be considered an appropriate sentence today. Dkt. 885. However, the government maintains that the life sentence for Count One, bank robbery, must be upheld as the record reflects the jury was instructed to make a finding as to whether the charge resulted in death. Id. Moreover, the government contends that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, which must be considered when analyzing a compassionate release request, weigh against reducing Mojica's sentence. Id. Mojica counters by stating the analysis of the 3553 factors support a reduced sentence. Dkt. 888.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A court may grant so-called “compassionate release” to a defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) provides, in relevant part, 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- (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); see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (sentencing guidelines policy statement on compassionate release). Under this statute, a district court may properly consider a motion for compassionate release under three circumstances: (1) the motion is filed by the Director of the BOP; (2) the motion is filed by defendant after he exhausts all his administrative rights to appeal BOP's refusal to bring a motion on his behalf; or (3) the motion is filed by defendant 30 days after defendant requested BOP to petition for compassionate release on his behalf. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Once a motion for compassionate release is properly before the court, the court must then determine if defendant is eligible for release. The statutory language quoted above requires that defendant show that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a reduction in his sentence, that the court consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to the extent applicable, and that the reduction be “consistent” with the Sentencing Commission's applicable policy statements. Id. Additionally, a defendant's dangerousness is a paramount concern as a court weighs the decision to grant a defendant early release. United States v. Gil, 484 F.Supp.3d 19, 22 (D.N.H., 2020); see also United States v. Bradshaw, No. 1:15-CR-422, 2019 WL 7605447, at *3 (M.D. N.C. Sept. 12, 2019) (explaining overlap between dangerousness requirement in compassionate release policy statement and § 3553(a) requirement that court consider the need to protect the public).

The § 3553(a) factors a court must consider at sentencing include the nature and circumstances of the defendant's offense and the defendant's personal history and characteristics. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Section 3553(a) requires the court ensure that the sentence imposed reflects the seriousness of the offense, promotes respect for the law, provides just punishment, affords adequate deterrence, protects the public from further crimes of the defendant, and provides the defendant with needed training, medical care, and other treatment in the most effective way. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Section 3553(a) further requires the court consider the kinds of sentences available, the Sentencing Guidelines, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to any victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(3)-(7).

In short, a court may reduce a term of imprisonment under the compassionate release provision if it finds: (1) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction; (2) the defendant will not be a danger to the safety of any other person or the community; and (3) the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weigh in favor of reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13; see also United States v. Sapp, No. 14-CR-20520, 2020 WL 515935, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2020); United States v. Willis, 382 F.Supp.3d 1185, 1187 (D.N.M. 2019). Moreover, the defendant has the burden of showing the abovementioned factors favor release. United States v. Figueroa-Gibson, 2024 WL 376432, at *2 (D.P.R. Jan. 31, 2024) (citing United States v. Galiany-Cruz, 2023 WL 6458535, at *1 (1st Cir. 2023); United States v. Miranda-Rojas, 2023 WL 7181650, at *1 (1st Cir. 2023)). The court has “broad discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion for sentence reduction.” United States v. Paul Gileno, 448 F.Supp.3d 183, 186 (D. Conn. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION

The government conceded that Mojica has exhausted his administrative remedies, Dkt. 885 at 3, and it raised no other administrative or jurisdictional issues. I shall therefore...