United States v. Sexton

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JACK PERSHING SEXTON, Defendant.

No. CR11-383-RSL

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

December 8, 2022

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on defendant's “Renewed Motion for Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1).” (Dkt. # 262). Having considered the motion and the record contained herein, the Court finds as follows:

I. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS

As an initial matter, the Court finds compelling reasons justify sealing defendant's records containing sensitive information (Dkt. # 264). Defendant's motion to seal (Dkt. # 263) is accordingly GRANTED.

Defendant's motion to file an overlength reply (Dkt. # 268) is also GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

Defendant is a 75-year-old inmate currently incarcerated at FDC SeaTac. See Federal Bureau of Prisons, Find an Inmate, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Nov. 9, 2022).^[1] On March 27, 2013, a jury convicted defendant of conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, three counts of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d), and three counts of using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). See Dkt. # 149 (jury verdict); Dkt. # 76 (superseding indictment). On June 21 2013, the Court sentenced defendant to 13 years' imprisonment for the conspiracy count and armed bank robbery counts, seven years' imprisonment for the first § 924(c) count, and 25 years' imprisonment for each of the other two § 924(c) counts. Dkt. # 163 at 3. These sentences run consecutively, meaning the Court sentenced defendant to 70 years' imprisonment in total. Id. at 3. Defendant is currently scheduled for release from the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) on October 4, 2071. Dkt. # 262-3 at 3.

This is defendant's second motion for compassionate release. The Court entered an Order denying defendant's first motion for compassionate release on June 3, 2021 (Dkt. # 260) (the “First Order”). In the First Order, the Court concluded that defendant had established extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting his release based on an attack and traumatic injury he suffered during his incarceration, the aftermath of that attack, his age, and his present medical conditions. Dkt. # 260 at 8-9. However, the Court denied defendant's motion, finding that the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not, on balance support defendant's release at that time. See id. at 9-13. The Court noted that defendant was not precluded from moving for compassionate release again in the future, and stated, “Potential evidence that could affect the compassionate release analysis may include, for example, statements by BOP staff, treatment providers, fellow inmates, etc., regarding any progress by defendant in engaging in prosocial behaviors. The Court would also look anew at any health conditions or other relevant factors.” Id. at 13.

Defendant now moves again for compassionate release and includes new evidence responsive to the Court's instruction.

III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

“A federal court generally ‘may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.'” Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)).

Congress has provided an exception to that rule, known as compassionate release, which allows the Court to reduce a sentence for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c); see also United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021); United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021). The First Step Act of 2018 amended the procedural requirements governing compassionate release. Whereas prior to the First Step Act's passage, only the Director of the BOP could bring motions for compassionate release, the amended statute allows defendant to directly petition the Court for compassionate release. See id. As amended, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) states in relevant part:

(c) Modification of an imposed term of imprisonment.-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 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; . . .

(ii) . . .

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

Prior to passing the First Step Act, Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to promulgate a policy statement defining “extraordinary and compelling reasons” in the compassionate release context. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). Section 994(t) provides:

The Commission, in promulgating general policy statements regarding the sentencing modification provisions in [18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)], shall describe what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of specific examples. Rehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.

The Sentencing Commission implemented this directive from Congress with a policy statement-U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. In relevant part, the policy statement provides,

Reduction in Term of Imprisonment Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Policy Statement)

Upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A), the court may reduce a term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment) if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent they are applicable, the court determines that-

(1)(A) Extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction;

...

(2) The defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); and

(3) The reduction is consistent with this policy statement.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.-Provided the defendant meets the requirements of subdivision (2), extraordinary and compelling reasons exist under any of the circumstances set forth below:

(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).

2. Foreseeability of Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.- For purposes of this policy statement, an extraordinary and compelling reason need not have been unforeseen at the time of sentencing in order to warrant a reduction in the term of imprisonment. Therefore, the fact that an extraordinary and compelling reason reasonably could have been known or anticipated by the sentencing court does not preclude consideration for a reduction under this policy statement.

3. Rehabilitation of the Defendant.-Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(t), rehabilitation of the defendant is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason for purposes of this policy statement.

4. Motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.-A reduction under this policy statement may be granted only upon motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Commission encourages the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to file such a motion if the defendant meets any of the circumstances set forth in Application Note 1. The court is in a unique position to determine whether the circumstances warrant a reduction (and, if so, the amount of reduction), after considering

...