United States v. Coutinho-Silva

• Decision Date: 15 August 2022
• Docket Number: CRIMINAL ACTION 10-002
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ANDERSON JOSE COUTINHO-SILVA
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ANDERSON JOSE COUTINHO-SILVA

CRIMINAL ACTION No. 10-002

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

August 15, 2022

MEMORANDUM

PRATTER, J.

Anderson Jose Coutinho-Silva seeks compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), for a variety of reasons. But none of his asserted reasons are “extraordinary and compelling” and so do not warrant compassionate release. Therefore, the Court denies his motions.

Background

I. Mr. Coutinho-Silva's Motions for Compassionate Release

On October 8, 2009, Mr. Coutinho Silva robbed the Supreme Pizza and Bakery in Northeast Philadelphia at gunpoint. He walked in, pointed a loaded semiautomatic handgun at the store employee operating the register, and demanded that the employee give him the money in that register. As this was taking place, a customer in the store confronted Mr. Coutinho-Silva, prompting Mr. Coutinho-Silva to rip a gold chain from the customer's neck. As the employee struggled to open the cash register, this customer then threw a chair at Mr. Coutinho-Silva; Mr. Coutinho-Silva shot twice at the customer, striking him once in the chest. Though admitted in critical condition, the customer survived his gunshot wounds.

Mr. Coutinho-Silva pled guilty to one count of robbery that interferes with interstate commerce, using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and being an alien in possession of a firearm. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), 924(c), 922(g)(5)(A). The Court sentenced him to

1

207 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, a $1,000 fine, and a $300 special assessment ($100 for each of the three counts). At the time of his offense, Mr. Coutinho-Silva was also on state probation, having been convicted of burglary in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

Mr. Coutinho-Silva is currently serving his sentence at the United States Prison Florence ADMAX (“USP Florence ADMAX”) with an anticipated release date of September 25, 2025. At the time of his first motion for compassionate release, he had served approximately 145 months and had credit for good time of approximately 5 months, leading to approximately 150 months served out of his 207-month sentence.

At present, Mr. Coutinho-Silva has filed five pro se motions for compassionate release. Doc. Nos. 46, 63,71,74, 75. In these motions, Mr. Coutinho-Silva suggests a few different theories as to why he has demonstrated an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for his release. The Government has filed a response in opposition to only one of these motions. From the Court's review of Mr. Coutinho-Silva's motions, it appears that Mr. Coutinho-Silva only properly exhausted one of his five motions. See Doc. No. 75, at ECF 4.

IL The Bureau of Prisons' Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has taken many measures to “mitigate the spread of COVID-19 in [its] facilities” and protect the health of inmates. BOP Modified Operations, Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/covidl9status.jsp (last visited Aug. 8, 2022). The BOP limits contact with outside visitors, restricts inmate movement within the prison, requires inmates and staff to wear masks, and screens all staff daily for symptoms. If an incoming inmate tests positive or presents symptoms, the BOP immediately medically isolates that inmate, while incoming inmates who are asymptomatic and negative are placed in quarantine for at least 14 days. The BOP has also put thousands of eligible prisoners-the elderly, the terminally ill, and those

2

who have almost finished their sentences-in home confinement. 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2); 34 U.S.C. § 60541(g); CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, § 12003(b)(2), 134 Stat. 281, 516.

The BOP has offered vaccines to its staff members and inmates, including those at USP Florence ADMAX. CO VID-19 Vaccine Implementation, Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/ coronavirus/index.jsp (Aug. 8, 2022). Mr. Coutinho-Silva is presently imprisoned at USP Florence ADMAX, which houses approximately 344 total inmates. USP Florence-ADMAX, Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/flm/ (last visited Aug. 8, 2022). As of August 2022, there had been 65 inmates and 116 staff members who had recovered from CO VID-19, no inmate had died of COVID-19, and there are presently 9 reported active staff cases of COVID-19 at USP Florence ADMAX. Tbl. USP Florence ADMAX, Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/ coronavirus/ (last visited Aug. 3, 2022).

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 the prison before applying to a court. 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). 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 be compelling, the reason must be “irresistible,” such that the court is “oblige[d]” or “force[d]” to reduce the sentence. Compelling (def. b.), Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed. 1989); Compel (def. 1), Id. Examples of potential “extraordinary and compelling” reasons include terminal medical conditions, complications arising from old age, or difficult family circumstances.

3

U.S.S.G. § IB 1.13 app. n. l. ^[1] 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. Coutinho-Silva Has Not Properly Exhausted His Administrative Remedies

At the outset, the Court must deny several of Mr. Coutinho-Silva's motions for failure to comply with the exhaustion requirement. That is because the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has required “strict compliance” with the exhaustion requirement in § 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020). Whether or not this rule is jurisdictional, as some courts have found, or a claim-processing rule, as others have found, it remains a threshold requirement of “critical [] importance.” ^[2] Id.', see United States v. Cruz, 455 F.Supp.3d 154, 157 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (“[S]ince [the defendant] has not yet presented his request for compassionate release to the BOP, it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”); United States v. Greenlove, 469 F.Supp.3d 341,349 (M.D. Pa. 2020) (“[T]he court cannot waive Section 3582(c)(1)(A)'s exhaustion requirement because it is jurisdictional”). But see, e.g, United States v. Texeira-Nieves, 23 F.4th 48, 53 (1st Ch. 2022) (explaining the 30-day exhaustion

4

requirement is a mandatory “non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule”); United States v. Saladino, 1 F.4th 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2021) (similar).

Here, the Government concedes that at least one of Mr. Coutinho-Silva's motions, Doc. No. 63, is not properly exhausted, but argues that the exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and, thus, attempts to waive it. Doc. No. 66, at 14 n.2. But the Government has not explained how or why the Court should waive this requirement given the Third Circuit's clear explanation that the exhaustion requirement acts as “a glaring roadblock” to motions for compassionate release. Raia, 954 F.3d at 597.

Some of Mr. Coutinho-Silva's other motions for compassionate release appear to suffer from the same defect. See, e.g., Doc. No. 71 (attaching complaints and responses to them explicitly stating that they have not been exhausted). Still others appear to be properly exhausted. See, e.g., Doc. No. 75 (attaching letters from the warden denying his request). The Court will not resolve on their merits those motions for compassionate release where Mr. Coutinho-Silva has not demonstrated that he has fully exhausted his administrative rights, but it will consider the merits of each motion, regardless of exhaustion, in the hopes that this may provide some clarity to Mr. Coutinho-Silva, especially in regard to his motion for...