United States v. Conway, Case No. 2:05-cr-00207-KJD-GWF

• Court: United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
• Writing for the Court: Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BRANDON CONWAY, Defendant.
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:05-cr-00207-KJD-GWF
• Decision Date: 04 February 2021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON CONWAY, Defendant.

Case No. 2:05-cr-00207-KJD-GWF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

February 4, 2021

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Compassionate Release under FIRST STEP Act (#48). Defendant filed an additional Motion for Compassionate Release under FIRST STEP Act one month later (#53). The Federal Public Defender's Office supplemented Defendant's motions (#54). The government responded in opposition (#57) and Defendant replied (#58).

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant Brandon Conway ("Conway") seeks compassionate release from Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") custody due to his health conditions that put him at increased risk of COVID-19. Conway is currently serving a 240-month sentence. (#57, at 2). Conway was charged by a Grand Jury Indictment with coercion and enticement, travel with intent to engage in sexual act with a juvenile, and transporting child pornography. Id. at 1-2. On November 28, 2006, Conway pleaded guilty to two of the three counts: coercion and enticement, and receipt of child pornography. Id. at 2. The Court issued the sentence and Conway is currently incarcerated at FCI Coleman Medium and is scheduled for release on July 22, 2022. Id.

II. Legal Standard

The district court that imposed sentence on a criminal defendant has authority to modify the term of imprisonment under the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (Dec. 21, 2018).

Page 2

That statute provides, in relevant part:

[T]he 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 [...]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), 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

If the defendant has exhausted administrative remedies, the analysis is twofold. First, the Court must consider the same factors applicable at the original sentencing, enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent they remain applicable at the time the motion is brought. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Second, the Court must find "extraordinary and compelling reasons" to release a defendant from Bureau of Prisons ("BOP")...