United States v. Weems

477 F.Supp.3d 1301

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Larry Earl WEEMS, Defendant.

Case No. 18-cr-60185-BB

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed August 7, 2020

Brian Dobbins, Eloisa Delgado Fernandez, J. Mackenzie Duane, United States Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.

ORDER

BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Larry Earl Weems pro se Motion for Release to Home Confinement, ECF No. [175] ("Pro se Motion") and Motion for Compassionate Release to Home Confinement, ECF No. [181] ("Public Defender Motion") (collectively, "Motions").¹ The Government filed responses in opposition to the Motions, ECF Nos. [177] and [182] ("Responses"), to which Defendant filed a reply, ECF No. [183] ("Reply"). The Court has reviewed the Motions, the Responses, the Reply, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motions are granted, subject to the conditions set forth in this Order.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 14, 2018, Defendant was sentenced to 50 months’ imprisonment followed by three years supervised release following his convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Counts 2-4 and 7-9). ECF Nos. [86]; [89]. His sentence as to each count is to be served concurrently. Defendant is currently housed at FCI Butner Medium I.

The Pro se Motion, filed on June 5, 2020, requests that Defendant be released to home confinement in light of the current coronavirus ("COVID-19") pandemic. ECF No. [175]. Defendant states that he tested positive for COVID-19, he was supposed to be released to a halfway house in late August 2020 but was told that he is not eligible for release due to lacking 28 credit hours in the RDAP drug education and treatment program (which classes have been halted due to the pandemic), and he has "real serious health problems" including Type 2 diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, sickle cell, and issues with one of his toes. Id. Defendant believes that given his health issues, he does not feel that he is "going to make it out of here." Id. In the Motion to Defer Ruling, Defendant notes that his health conditions place him in a "high risk for severe consequences from COVID-19." ECF No. [179] at 2. Specifically, he states that CDC statistics reflect that diabetics have a 7.3% risk of death from contracting the virus. Id.

In the Public Defender's Motion, Defendant represents that the BOP has amended Defendant's release date to February 16, 2021 due to the closure of the RDAP program. ECF No. [181].² Accordingly, he requests the Court deny his Motion to Defer Ruling and instead Order him to be released to home confinement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In support, he argues again that his health conditions place him in a high-risk category for severe consequences from COVID-19, id. at 2-4; he presents "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for compassionate release based on his underlying medical issues and the BOP's inability to safeguard at-risk inmates,³ id. at 5-14; he has exhausted his administrative remedies, id. at 14-19; the BOP was prepared to release him from confinement without home detention in August 2020, meaning he is "obviously not a threat to society," id. at 19-22; and the § 3553(a) factors weigh in his favor, id. at 22-23. The Government opposes Defendant's request for release to home confinement. ECF Nos. [177]; [182].

SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus, and COVID-19, the disease it causes, have spread throughout the world and are impacting every person's life. The United States is currently reporting more confirmed cases of COVID-19 and deaths as a result than any other country, with more than 4,748,800 confirmed cases and over 156,300 reported deaths as of August 6, 2020.⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic poses a serious danger to society at large, and especially to at-risk inmates. In addition, COVID-19 poses a higher risk to incarcerated individuals who are unable to practice health precautions available to the general public, such as social distancing.

As a result of this dynamic, unpredictable, and unprecedented situation, Attorney General William Barr has urged the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") to move vulnerable inmates out of institutions and to home confinement, where appropriate. See Mem. from Attorney Gen. William Barr for Dir. of Bureau of Prisons re: Increasing Use of Home Confinement at Institutions Most Affected by COVID-19 (Apr. 3, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/file/1266661/download ("Memorandum"). The Memorandum identifies several facilities that have been particularly affected and which should be given priority in the BOP's consideration of implementing home confinement, including FCI Oakdale, FCI Danbury, and FCI Elkton. Id. at 1. In addition, the Attorney General has made an express finding that extant emergency conditions are materially affecting the functioning of the BOP, and directs that the BOP immediately maximize appropriate transfers to home confinement of all appropriate inmates at the specifically named facilities, and other similarly situated facilities where COVID-19 is materially affecting operations. Id. The Memorandum further directs the BOP to review all inmates who have COVID-19 risk factors as established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC") to determine suitability for home confinement, while emphasizing the importance of protecting the public from individuals who may pose a danger to society, and recognizing the need to prevent over-burdening law enforcement with "the indiscriminate release of thousands of prisoners onto the streets without any verification that those prisoners will follow the laws when they are released ... and that they will not return to their old ways as soon as they walk through the prison gates." Id. at 2-3. The Memorandum also stresses the need for careful individualized determinations regarding the propriety of releasing any given inmate and does not encourage indiscriminate release. Id. at 3.

II. DISCUSSION

"Generally, a court ‘may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.’ " United States v. Pubien , 805 Fed.Appx. 727, 729 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) ).

"The authority of a district court to modify an imprisonment sentence is narrowly limited by statute." [ United States v. Phillips , 597 F.3d 1190, 1194-95 (11th Cir. 2010) ]. Section 3582(c) of Title 18 provides that the district court may not modify a defendant's imprisonment sentence except: (1) if the Bureau of Prisons files a motion and extraordinary or compelling circumstances warrant modification or if the defendant is at least 70 years old and has served 30 years in prison; (2) if the modification is expressly permitted by statute or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 ; or (3) if the defendant's original sentencing range has subsequently been lowered as a result of an amendment to the Guidelines by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).

United States v. Shaw , 711 F. App'x 552, 554-55 (11th Cir. 2017) ; see also United States v. Celedon , 353 F. App'x 278, 280 (11th Cir. 2009) ; United States v. Diaz-Clark , 292 F.3d 1310, 1316-18 (11th Cir. 2002). Thus, "[t]he law is clear that the district court has no inherent authority to modify a sentence; it may do so only when authorized by a statute or rule." United States v. Rivas , 800 Fed.Appx. 742, 745 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Puentes , 803 F.3d 597, 605-06 (11th Cir. 2015) ); see also United States v. Llewlyn , 879 F.3d 1291, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Dillon v. United States , 560 U.S. 817, 827, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) ).

Defendant seeks relief under the compassionate release provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), which provides:

(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) [ 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)(i).

Under the relevant Sentencing Guidelines policy statement, the Court "may reduce a 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 ... extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13 (U.S. Sentencing Comm'n 2018). The Sentencing Guidelines add that the Court should reduce a sentence only if the "defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community." Id.

Accordingly,

Section 3582 sets out the order in which this Court should analyze a criminal defendant's entitlement to a sentencing reduction. First , when the defendant brings the motion himself, the Court must ascertain whether he "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 [whether there has been a] lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the

...