United States v. Robertson

591 F.Supp.3d 381

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Christopher M. ROBERTSON, Defendant.

3:11-cr-00025

United States District Court, S.D. Iowa.

Signed February 1, 2022

Andrea Leigh Glasgow, United States Attorney's Office, Davenport, IA, for Plaintiff.

ORDER GRANTING COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

ROBERT W. PRATT, Judge

Before the Court is Defendant Christopher Robertson's Pro Se Motion for Compassionate Release, filed on July 26, 2021. ECF No. 135. Counsel for Defendant filed an appearance and a supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Compassionate Release in September 2021. ECF Nos. 136, 137. The Government filed a Response in Opposition. ECF No. 139. Defendant replied to the Government's Response, ECF No. 140, and filed additional briefing with the Court in October 2021, ECF No. 141. The matter is fully submitted.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was raised by a single mother in a lower-class neighborhood in Iowa. ECF No. 74 ¶¶ 54, 57. Defendant started using illegal drugs in his teens. Id. ¶¶ 65, 66. He dropped out of high school after completing the ninth grade in order to work full time. Id. ¶ 71. When his dad died of heart disease, Defendant struggled with the loss of his father and relied on the close relationships he had with his mother and siblings. Id. ¶¶ 54, 56, 57. Defendant, however, started to increase his drug use into young adulthood, staying "awake on methamphetamine" for periods as long as a week at a time. Id. ¶ 65. Defendant struggled with addiction to the point where he was selling drugs to pay off drug debts. Id. ¶ 18. Defendant was in his late-twenties by the time he was arrested for the federal offense in this case. See id. at 4.

Defendant was arrested in February 2011 after a search warrant was executed by law enforcement officers at his residence following an intercepted controlled delivery of marijuana and methamphetamine. Id. ¶¶ 10, 14. Between 2010 and 2011, Defendant had conspired with his Codefendant to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(D), and 846. ECF No. 92. Defendant also possessed firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Id. After Defendant was indicted, the Government filed a notice under 21 U.S.C. § 851 enhancing Defendant's drug-offense penalty based on a prior felony drug offense. ECF No. 24; see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 851. The prior felony used to enhance Defendant's sentence was a 2003 Iowa conviction for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. ECF No. 24 ¶ 1. The § 851 recidivist enhancement increased Defendant's mandatory minimum term from five years to ten years in prison under § 841(b)(1)(B). Defendant eventually accepted a plea deal and pleaded guilty to two counts of a four-count Indictment: Conspiracy to Manufacture and Distribute Drugs (Count One) under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(D), and 846, and Possession of Firearms in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking (Count Four) under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). ECF Nos. 46, 47, 53. Defendant also stipulated to the § 851 enhancement and waived a hearing on the § 851 notice. ECF No. 47 ¶ 8. In 2012, this Court sentenced Defendant to 180 months’ imprisonment, including 120 months on Count One to be followed by sixty consecutive months on Count Four, and eight years of supervised release. ECF No. 92.

Defendant is currently in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at FMC Rochester. Find an Inmate , Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/mobile/find_inmate (last visited Jan. 25, 2022). He is thirty-eight years old. Id. He has been incarcerated for over a decade of his life and is projected to be released from prison on March 18, 2024. ECF No. 135 at 24. Since beginning his term of incarceration, Defendant has successfully completed numerous prison programs, including drug-abuse education and vocational training. Id. at 16–21. In addition, Defendant has maintained contact with an outside employer, who as of June 2021, promises Defendant full-time employment with a decent starting wage upon Defendant's release. Id. at 22.

In June 2021, Defendant requested compassionate release from the Warden at FMC Rochester under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). ECF No. 135 at 15; ECF No. 137 at 4. Defendant argued for compassionate release on four grounds: (1) the length of his enhanced sentence created a sentencing disparity following reforms under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (2018); (2) he feared contracting the virus that causes COVID-19; (3) he presented significant post-sentencing rehabilitation; and (4) as a non-violent offender under a minimum-security classification, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed in favor of his early release. ECF No. 135 at 12-14. The Warden denied Defendant's request. ECF No. 137-1 at 1.

Defendant then filed a Motion with this Court seeking relief on the same grounds. ECF No. 135. The Government has opposed Defendant's Motion. ECF No. 139. The Government argues that Defendant's Motion should be denied because: (1) Defendant is vaccinated against the virus that causes COVID-19; (2) he does not have any health concerns to qualify for compassionate release; (3) there are no extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release; and (4) his recent disciplinary infractions "cast doubt on the defendant's claimed rehabilitation." Id. at 1, 14 (stating Defendant possessed a "hazardous tool" in 2020 and a cell phone on two separate occasions in 2018 and 2019). The Government appears to concede that Defendant faces a sentencing disparity.

II. ANALYSIS

The First Step Act amended various provisions of the U.S. Code to promote rehabilitation of prisoners and unwind decades of mass incarceration. Cong. Research Serv., R45558, The First Step Act of 2018: An Overview 1 (2019). Congress designed § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow federal prisoners to move for compassionate release directly with U.S. district courts—instead of solely relying on the BOP's determination—to maximize the use and transparency of the statute. See First Step Act, § 603(b). In addition to increasing access to compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A), the First Step Act restricted which prior convictions could serve as predicate offenses for harsh sentencing enhancements under §§ 841(b)(1)(B) and 851. Logically, these congressional reforms under the First Step Act can and should be considered in tandem when deciding compassionate release motions, especially given that these reforms fall under the same umbrella of combating mass incarceration in our country.

In deciding whether a defendant should be granted compassionate release, this Court considers three things: (1) exhaustion of administrative remedies with the BOP under § 3582(c)(1)(A) ; (2) whether a defendant has "extraordinary and compelling" justifications for early release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) plus any relevant policy statements from the U.S. Sentencing Commission; and (3) whether the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of release. See, e.g., United States v. Santamaria , 516 F. Supp. 3d 832, 835 (S.D. Iowa 2021).

A. Exhaustion

First, § 3582(c)(1)(A) includes a gatekeeping provision that provides two routes for a defendant to bring a compassionate-release motion to the Court. A defendant may file a motion after fully exhausting administrative remedy procedures with the BOP. Id. Alternatively, a defendant may file a motion after "the lapse of [thirty] days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier." Id.

Here, Defendant's Motion is ripe for review because the Warden denied his June 2021 request. Therefore, for purposes of this Motion, Defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies with the BOP and the Court can proceed on the merits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

B. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons

Second, the Court must determine whether Defendant presents "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) or any relevant policy statement by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing Commission provides several factors to consider in Application Note 1 of § 1B1.13 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual. This includes the defendant's medical condition, age, family circumstances, and any "other reasons" considered extraordinary and compelling in the discretion of the BOP Director. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 1B1.13 app. n. 1(A)–(D) (U.S. Sent'g Comm'n 2021). Following the First Step Act, federal district courts assume the same discretion as the BOP Director when considering any other extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. See, e.g., United States v. Cantu , 423 F. Supp. 3d 345, 352 (S.D. Tex. 2019). The factors in the Policy Statement and its commentary at § 1B1.13 are relevant, but not binding on district courts, in deciding whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a reduction in sentence. See United States v. Marcussen , 15 F.4th 855, 859 (8th Cir. 2021) ("[The Policy Statement] has not been revised since the First Step Act authorized inmates to seek reductions directly.... [T]he First Step Act in 2018 did not change the discretion afforded the district court."). The only limit Congress has provided is that "[r]ehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason." 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) (emphasis added).

Many courts—including this one—conclude that disparities created by sentencing law reforms are "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 Application Note 1(D). United States v. Jones , No. 4:06-cr-00278, 2021 WL 1156631, at *5 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 25, 2021) ; United States v. Brown , 457 F. Supp. 3d 691, 702 (S.D. Iowa 2020), appeal dismissed following government request , No. 20-2053 (8th Cir. June 16, 2020) (holding changes to mandatory minimum...