United States v. Williams

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LAMONT WILLIAMS

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 08-704-09

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

June 28, 2023

MEMORANDUM

GENE E. K. PRATTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

For a second time, Lamont Williams seeks a reduction in his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). But none of the reasons he asserts in his counseled motion are “extraordinary and compelling,” and so they do not warrant early release from his present home confinement. Therefore, the Court denies his motion.

Background

Mr Williams participated in a large drug trafficking operation. At trial, Mr. Williams was convicted of conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Because Mr. Williams had a previous federal conviction for drug distribution relating to conduct in 1996, the Court sentenced him to the then-applicable mandatory minimum term of 240 months of imprisonment, ten years of supervised release, a $2,000 fine, and a $200 special assessment.

Mr Williams previously sought a reduction in sentence in 2019 arguing that non-retroactive changes in federal sentencing law would have resulted in a substantially shorter sentence for him had he been convicted at a different time and that he had an excellent rehabilitative record. The Court denied Mr Williams's motion, finding no “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances had been presented.

In July 2020, after Mr. Williams had served approximately half of his sentence, the Bureau of Prisons, acting under the authority of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”), Pub. L. 116-136, § 12003(b)(2), 134 Stat. 516 (2020), transferred Mr. Williams to home confinement. Since that time, Mr. Williams has been living in his parents' home and working in the community under the supervision of the Residential Reentry Management Philadelphia field office and its re-entry services contractor, Kintock Center. Mr. Williams has an anticipated release date of January 4, 2026. At the time he filed the instant motion, Mr. Williams had served approximately 155 months and had credit for good conduct time of approximately 20 months, meaning he had served approximately 175 months out of his 240-month sentence.

In this motion, Mr. Williams suggests three grounds as “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for his release. The Government has filed a response in opposition to the motion.

Legal Standard

For the most part, courts “may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Before asking a court to modify a sentence, a prisoner must first have “fully exhausted” his administrative remedies within a prison before applying to a court.^[1] 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Assuming a prisoner has met that threshold requirement, a court can, in limited circumstances, reduce a sentence for “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” Id § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). While § 3582 does not itself define “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” to count as extraordinary, the reason must be “[b]eyond what is usual, customary, regular, or common.” Extraordinary (def. 1), Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). To constitute a compelling need, the need must be “so great that irreparable harm or injustice would result if it is not met.” Compelling need, id.. Examples of potential “extraordinary and compelling” reasons include terminal medical conditions, complications arising from old age, or difficult family circumstances. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 app. n. I.^[2] Once the prisoner has shown an extraordinary and compelling reason to warrant a sentence reduction, the Court must then consider the sentencing factors, set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553,to decide if the sentence should be reduced, and by how much. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Discussion

I. Mr. Williams Has Not Presented Any Extraordinary and Compelling Reason for His Release

In his motion, Mr. Williams presents three grounds as “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for his release: (1) his kidney disease; (2) his rehabilitation; and (3) the “overlong” period of home confinement resulting from his transfer from prison pursuant to the CARES Act.

The Court finds that none of Mr. Williams's asserted grounds are “extraordinary and compelling” reasons to reduce his sentence. And, even if the Court were to find that Mr. Williams adequately asserted extraordinary and compelling reasons, the sentencing factors counsel against his early release.

A. Mr. Williams's Medical Condition Is Not an Extraordinary and Compelling Reason for His Release

Mr. Williams, who is 49 years old, asserts that his stage 3 chronic kidney disease is an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release.

To demonstrate an “extraordinary and compelling” health reason sufficient to qualify for compassionate release, a prisoner generally should show that he suffers from “a serious physical or medical condition . .. 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.” U.S.S.G. § IB 1.13 app. n.1(A)(ii) (emphasis added).

Mr. Williams, however, does not show that his kidney disease significantly diminishes his ability to care for himself, particularly while he is on home confinement-indeed, quite the opposite. Mr. Williams admits in his motion that his records show his kidney disease has been “in remission” since 2019. Def.'s Second Mot. for Reduction in Sentence at 8 n.4. He sees a nephrologist regularly since his time in home confinement, and notes that his “condition does not appear to have deteriorated markedly during his imprisonment.” Id. at 9 n.5. And his kidney disease does not appear to interfere with his present employment as a property manager, which necessitates strenuous activities including “doing construction, maintenance, and repairs of all kinds.” Id. ¶ 15(b)(ii); cf. United States v. Reaves, No. 91-cr-570-09, 2023 WL 2795349, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 5, 2023) (finding that defendant's combined medical conditions, which included “thyroid dysfunction; enlarged prostate; ulcerative colitis; schizophrenia, polythetic right eye and left eye blindness; and Crohn's disease” qualified as “extraordinary and compelling” reasons, particularly because the defendant required other inmates to assist him in bathing and dressing).

Mr. Williams notes that his medical condition elevates his risk factor for adverse outcomes from a COVID-19 infection. It is true that chronic kidney disease may increase the likelihood of acute sickness after contracting COVID-19. See People with Certain Medical Conditions, Ctrs. for

Disease Control & Prevention (May 11,2023), https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviras/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html (last visited June 23,2023). However, Mr. Williams does not disclose the extent to which he has been vaccinated against COVID-19, and COVID-19 vaccines, particularly up-to-date bivalent boosters, have been reported as safe and effective in protecting against severe medical outcomes caused by COVID-19 and identified variants. See, e.g., COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Update, Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (Mar. 23, 2023), https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccine-effectiveness (last visited June 23, 2023). The widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines virtually eliminates any related risk of death or serious injuiy as a basis for compassionate release. Garrett v. Murphy, 17 F.4th 419, 433 (3d Cir. 2021). Moreover, Mr. Williams does not assert any facts that would suggest a reduced risk of contracting COVID-19 as a result of an abbreviated sentence when compared with the COVID-19 risks associated with continued home confinement. See, e.g., United States v. Somerville, 463 F.Supp.3d 585, 596 -97 (W.D. Pa. 2020) (“[A] prisoner seeking release due to COVID-19 must at least show: (1) a sufficiently serious medical condition, or advanced age, placing the prisoner at a uniquely high risk of grave illness or death if infected by COVID-19; and (2) an actual, non-speculative risk of exposure to COVID-19 in the facility where the prisoner is held.”) (emphasis added).

Because Mr. Williams's medical condition appears well-managed and does not interfere with his daily life, the Court concludes that it does not provide a basis for the reduction of his sentence.

B. Mr. Williams's Rehabilitation Is Not an Extraordinary and Compelling Reason for a Reduction in Sentence

Mr. Williams argues that his early transfer to home confinement has allowed him to demonstrate his “exceptional rehabilitation” to the Court. Def.'s Second Mot. for Reduction of Sentence ¶ 15(b). In support of this argument, he cites to the financial and medical support he gives to his parents, with whom he currently lives. He also notes the favorable reviews he receives from his employer for his work as a property manager and his aspiration to owning his own trucking i company. Further, Mr. Williams has passed his drug screenings consistently since he was transferred to home confinement, and he has submitted letters from his case managers indicating i that Mr. Williams has behaved in exemplary fashion while under their supervision. Finally, Mr. Williams notes that under his Prisoner Assessment Tool Targeting Estimated Risk and Needs (“PATTERN”) assessment, a tool used by the Bureau of Prisons to measure an inmate's rehabilitation, he was assessed as at minimal risk for recidivism.

As the Court previously noted in denying Mr. Williams's first motion for a reduction in sentence, Congress has explicitly stated that “rehabilitation of the defendant ...