United States v. Bravo-Ziranda
| Docket Number | 3:18-cr-00415-K-1 |
| Decision Date | 10 July 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSE BRAVO-ZIRANDA, #57473-177, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Before the Court are Defendant Jose Bravo-Ziranda's motion and supplemental motion for compassionate release (docs. 146 157). Bravo-Ziranda moves for the Court to reduce his sentence to time served under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and he seeks compassionate release to transfer into the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) for deportation to Mexico. The Government filed a response (doc. 160), and Bravo-Ziranda filed a reply (doc. 163). For the reasons addressed below the Court GRANTS Bravo-Ziranda's motions and ORDERS that he be released to ICE custody based on a detainer. See (Doc. 157-1 at 7).
Bravo-Ziranda pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C)). On February 19, 2020, the Court sentenced him to 120 months' imprisonment. Bravo-Ziranda did not appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and he has not filed a post-conviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
On August 3, 2022, Bravo-Ziranda filed a pro se motion for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. 146.) Then, on August 15, 2022, the Court appointed the Federal Public Defender's Office to assist Bravo-Ziranda with pursuing his motion for compassionate release. (Doc. 147.) On April 28, 2023, Bravo-Ziranda, through counsel, filed a supplemental motion for compassionate release. (Doc. 157.) Bravo-Ziranda contends that the Court should reduce his sentence to time served, and in support, he argues: (1) he may petition the Court for compassionate release; (2) he has exhausted his administrative remedies; (3) his cancer and other health conditions constitute extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); and (4) reducing his sentence aligns with the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Government responds that Bravo-Ziranda's motions for compassionate release should be denied. (Doc. 160.)
A district court lacks inherent authority to modify a defendant's sentence after it has been imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). But under § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act (“FSA”), “[a] court, on a motion by the [Bureau of Prisons (BOP)] or by the defendant after exhausting all BOP remedies, may reduce or modify a term of imprisonment, probation, or supervised release after considering the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), if ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.'” United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 692-93 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)); see also Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693 n.1.
Congress did not specifically define “extraordinary and compelling reasons” under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and it left “that task to the Sentencing Commission, though Congress did insist that ‘[r]ehabilitation of the [prisoner] alone' cannot justify a reduced sentence.” United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1090 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 994(t); United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 390-91 (5th Cir. 2021)). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently clarified “that a prisoner cannot use § 3582(c) to challenge the legality or the duration of his sentence,” holding that, “[b]ecause [the federal prisoner's] claims would have been cognizable under [28 U.S.C.] § 2255, they are not cognizable under § 3582(c).” United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 187-88 (5th Cir. 2023).
A sentence reduction under § 3582(c) also “must be ‘consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.'” Jackson, 27 F.4th at 1089 (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)). In the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, the Sentencing Commission “‘articulate[s] four categories of ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons' that could warrant a sentence reduction: (A) medical conditions of the defendant; (B) age of the defendant; (C) family circumstances; and (D) other reasons identified by the [BOP's] Director.” Id. at 1090 (quoting Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 391).
“[T]he Commission apparently did not anticipate that Congress would allow prisoners to file compassionate-release motions,” as § 1B1.13 “repeatedly states that it governs the Bureau's compassionate release motions.” Id. (citing Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 392). Consequently, “§ 1B1.13 is not an ‘applicable policy statement' to compassionate release motions filed by prisoners, [so] ‘neither the policy statement nor the commentary to it binds a district court addressing a prisoner's own motion under § 3582.'” United States v. Cooper, 996 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 392-93); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 27 F.4th 1097, 1099-1100 (5th Cir. 2022) () (citing Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 391-92).
“Even so, Section 1B1.13 may ‘inform [ ]' the district court's analysis.” Jackson, 27 F.4th at 1090 (quoting United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2021)); see also United States v. Rucker, No. 21-40204, 2021 WL 5627064, at *1 (5th Cir. Nov. 30, 2021) (per curiam) () (citing Thompson, 984 F.3d at 433).
When a defendant proffers a reason for a sentence reduction that the district court, which is no longer bound by § 1B1.3 finds to be an extraordinary and compelling reason, that alone is not a basis to reduce a sentence. Rather, the defendant still must convince the district court “to exercise discretion to grant the motion [for compassionate release] after considering the [Section] 3553(a) factors.” Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 361 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 392); see also Thompson, 984 F.3d at 433 & 433. n.2.
Before a defendant may bring his own motion, the FSA, “in clear language, specifies” that “a defendant must submit a request to ‘the [BOP] to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf.'” United States v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)). This “prefiling administrative exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, but it is a mandatory claim-processing rule.” United States v. Harmon, 834 Fed.Appx. 101, 101-02 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (citing Franco, 973 F.3d at 46768). So, if “the Government properly raise[s] the rule requiring exhaustion in the district court, ‘the court must enforce the rule.'” Id. at 102 (quoting Franco, 973 F.3d at 468) (emphasis in original). In this case, the warden at FMC Devens denied Bravo-Miranda's motion for compassionate release on August 9, 2022. App. 10 (Doc. 1571). Consequently, Bravo-Ziranda has exhausted his administrative remedies.
Initially, Bravo-Ziranda argues that he did not have any health issues for the Court to weigh at his sentencing on February 19, 2020, but he has now been diagnosed with papillary thyroid cancer. (Doc. 157 at 8); see also (PSR ¶ 54) (he reported “no serious or chronic illness”); (Doc. 120) (recognizing the PSR was adopted “without change”). Bravo-Ziranda further argues that the BOP has designated him as a Care Level 4 inmate, which is a meaningful designation because it is the “BOP's highest classification for medical care.” Id. at 8. As discussed below, the Court finds that Bravo-Ziranda's medical conditions demonstrate “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Bravo-Ziranda is currently forty-four years old, and he is incarcerated within the BOP at Devens Federal Medical Center (“FMC”) in Ayer, Massachusetts. See App. 7 (Doc. 157-1) (); see also https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited June 26, 2023) (BOP inmate locator). In November 2021, Bravo-Ziranda was experiencing concerning health signs, such as abnormal thyroid levels, a loss of ten to fifteen pounds within the past few years, and a noticeable tremor in his arms and legs that had been present for several years. App. 11, 13 (Doc. 157-1). Bravo-Ziranda underwent a fine needle aspiration biopsy on January 12, 2022, and he was diagnosed with “[p]apillary thyroid carcinoma,” or papillary thyroid cancer. Id. at 34.
Papillary thyroid cancer is the most common type of thyroid cancer. https://www.mdanderson.org/cancerwise/what-is-papillary-thyroid-cancer--8-questions--answered.h00-159543690.html (last visited June 26, 2023). Papillary thyroid cancer is said to have metastasized when it has spread from its original location point. Id. On February 4, 2022, a surgical oncologist met with Bravo-Ziranda and recommended holding off on surgery until his hyperthyroidism had become more stable. App. 47 (Doc. 157-1). Then, on April 20, 2022, Bravo-Ziranda underwent a total thyroidectomy. Id. at 63-64. The pathology report from the surgery showed that Bravo-Ziranda's thyroid cancer had metastasized to one of two lymph nodes. Id. at 71, 84, 87,89.
A possible complication with papillary thyroid cancer is metastasizing of the cancer to the lymph nodes, but it is rare for papillary thyroid cancer to spread https://www.mountsinai.org/health-library/diseases-conditions/thyroid-cancer-papillary-carcinoma (last visited June 26, 2023). The prognosis for those diagnosed with papillary thyroid cancer is better when they are less than 40 years old. Id. On May 23, 2022, a BOP physician recognized the significance...
To continue reading
Request your trial