United States v. Bogle
| Decision Date | 17 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 95-cr-298 (RCL) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CLIFFORD THEOPHILUS BOGLE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
In 1996, a jury convicted defendant Clifford Theophilus Bogle of second-degree murder and other offenses related to the killing of Cordell Johnson and Mr. Bogie's subsequent shootout with police. United States v. Bogle, 114 F.3d 1271, 1272 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Mr. Bogle was sentenced to thirty-three years to life imprisonment.
Now fifty-nine-year-old Mr. Bogle moves for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Def.'s Mot to Reduce Sentence (“Def.'s Mot.”), ECF No 104, at 1. In support of his request, Mr. Bogle claims that the COVID-19 pandemic, his medical problems, and age amount to “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances justifying his release. Id. at 3-4. The government opposes Mr. Bogie's motion, arguing that Mr. Bogle has not shown he is entitled to compassionate release primarily because Mr. Bogle, who is now fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and has received a booster shot, faces a diminished risk of serious infection or death from the virus, even considering his medical conditions. Gov't Opp'n ECF No. 105, at 15-19. Mr. Bogle, on the other hand, insists that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) “cannot adequately protect” him from the persistent threat of COVID-19, causing extraordinary and compelling circumstances to remain. Def.'s Mot. at 3; Def.'s Reply, ECF No 107. Upon consideration of the parties' filings, the record therein, and the applicable law, the Court will DENY Mr. Bogle's motion for compassionate release.
The events giving rise to Mr. Bogie's conviction occurred on June 8,1995. Bogle, 114 F.3d at 1272. Three days earlier, Mr. Bogie's brother was murdered in Washington, D.C. Id. Upon learning of his brother's death, Mr. Bogle flew to Washington from California, where he was living after illegally reentering the United States following a prior deportation. Id.; Gov't Opp'n at 2. The Circuit explained the rest of the factual history underlying Mr. Bogie's offense as the following:
On June 8 at around 2 p.m. undercover police officers heard gunshots and saw a man later identified as Cordell Johnson limping down the street and another man later identified as the [Mr. Bogle] running right behind him. Bogle shot Johnson several times; when Johnson collapsed to the ground, Bogle shot him again and continued running. The officers chased Bogle, exchanged gunfire, lost sight of him, and around 4:30 p.m. captured him.
Bogle, 114 F.3d at 1272. One officer sustained a bullet wound to the arm during the exchange. Gov't Opp'n at 2. Mr. Johnson was just eighteen years old when he was killed. Id.
In March 1996, following a jury trial, Mr. Bogle was convicted of four of the six offenses for which he was indicted: second-degree murder in violation of 22 D.C. Code §§ 2403 and 2404 (“Count 1”), possession of a firearm during a crime of violence or dangerous offense in violation of 22 D.C. Code § 3204(b) (“Count 2”), aggravated assault on a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1) and (b) (“Count 5”), and use of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (“Count 6”).[1] Bogle, 114 F.3d at 1272; Gov't Opp'n at 3. Mr. Bogle received the following sentences: twenty years to life (Count 1); five to fifteen years (Count 2); two years and eleven months (Count 5); and five years (Count 6). Gov't Opp'n at 2. In all, Mr. Bogle was sentenced to an aggregate of thirty-three years to life imprisonment. J., ECF No. 40. His sentence was affirmed on appeal. Bogle, 114 F.3d at 1276. The government represents that Mr. Bogle “recently was paroled from the indeterminate D.C. Code sentence [Count 1]” and thus his aggregate sentence is now thirty-three years. Gov't Opp'n at 21.
Mr. Bogle has filed multiple collateral attacks to his convictions. See Mot. to Vacate, ECF No. 55; Mot. to Vacate, ECF No. 61; Mot. to Vacate, ECF No. 71; Suppl. to Mot. to Vacate, ECF No. 76; Pet., ECF No. 77; Mot. to Modify J., ECF No. 84; 2d Mot. to Vacate, ECF No. 86; Suppl. to 2d Mot. to Vacate, ECF No. 92. All of them were denied. See Mem. Order, ECF No. 60; Order, ECF No. 63; Order, ECF No. 76; Order, ECF No. 85; Order, ECF No. 91; Order, ECF No. 97.
In June 2022, Mr. Bogle filed the present pro se motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that his age and the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with his obesity, chronic kidney disease, and prediabetes, constitute extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting his compassionate release. See Def's Mot. Additionally, Mr. Bogle argues that the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors militate in favor of his release. See id. The government opposes Mr. Bogie's motion, arguing that no extraordinaiy and compelling reasons for compassionate release exist and that the § 3553(a) factors do not support a sentence reduction. See Gov't Opp'n at 1.
Mr. Bogle is currently imprisoned at FCI Allenwood Medium. Def.'s Mot. at 5; Gov't Opp'n at 4. His projected release date is January 31, 2027. Gov't Opp'n at 3. Mr. Bogle states that he will be deported to his home country of Jamaica upon release. Def.'s Mot. at 4. The government notes that Mr. Bogle has a pending detainer from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Sent'g Monitoring Computation Data, Ex. 4 to Gov't Opp'n, ECF No. 105-4, at 5.
A defendant seeking compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) bears the burden of establishing that he is eligible for a sentence reduction. United States v. Jackson, 26 F.4th 994, 1001 (D.C. Cir. 2022). To be eligible for a reduction, two threshold requirements must be met. First, the defendant must have exhausted his administrative remedies. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). This requires a showing that “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 that thirty days have elapsed since “the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility,” whichever deadline is earlier. Id. Second, the defendant must show that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” a reduction of his original sentence. Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
If the Court finds that the defendant has met his burden of showing these two requirements, the Court has the discretion to “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 relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Although Mr. Bogle has exhausted his administrative remedies, he has failed to meet his burden of establishing “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances that would warrant a sentence reduction. Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Accordingly, this Court must deny his motion and need not examine the application of the § 3553(a) factors. The Court will address Mr. Bogie's purported “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances below.
Both parties agree that Mr. Bogle has exhausted his administrative remedies. See Def.'s Mot. at 1, 3; Gov't Opp'n at 15. On October 6, 2021, Mr. Bogle sent a letter to the warden at FCI Allenwood Medium, requesting that the BOP file a motion to reduce his sentence, and grant him compassionate release on the grounds that his health conditions make him especially vulnerable during the CO VID-19 pandemic. Part B - Resp., Ex. 1 to Def.'s Mot., ECF No. 104-1. The warden denied Mr. Bogie's request on October 18, 2021. Id. Accordingly, Mr. Bogie's motion is properly before the Court. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Mr. Bogle argues that his age and the COVID-19 pandemic in conjunction with his medical issues-obesity, chronic kidney disease, and prediabetes-amount to extraordinary and compelling circumstances justifying a sentence reduction. Def.'s Mot. at 3-4. The Court finds the argument unpersuasive.
1. The Risk Posed to Mr. Bogle by COVID-19 is Not “Extraordinary and Compelling”
As the Circuit has recognized, CO VID-19 is impacting the entire world, not just the prison population, and certainly not just FCI Allenwood Medium. See Jackson, 26 F.4th at 1001-02. The pandemic alone cannot serve as the basis for extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Id. (affirming denial of compassionate release because defendant “offered no real evidence that the presence of the disease was greater in his place of confinement than anywhere else”).
Mr. Bogle argues that the COVID-19 pandemic is an extraordinary and compelling circumstance for him because his unique medical conditions create an undue risk of serious infection and even death. Def.'s Mot. at 3-4. But the Circuit has recognized that medical conditions plaguing a large subset of the nation do not create extraordinary circumstances. See Jackson, 26 F.4th at 1002 (internal citations omitted) ( that defendant's obesity did not make his COVID-19 risk extraordinary because the entire nation suffers from an obesity epidemic).
Like obesity in Jackson, Mr. Bogie's other medical conditions are not extraordinary. More than one in seven U.S adults are estimated to have chronic kidney disease. Chronic Kidney Disease in the United States, 2021, CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION,...
To continue reading
Request your trial