United States v. Del Rosario Martinez, Case No. 19cr5218-MMA

• Court: United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
• Writing for the Court: MICHAEL M. ANELLO, United States District Judge
• Citation: 524 F.Supp.3d 1062
• Docket Number: Case No. 19cr5218-MMA
• Decision Date: 10 March 2021
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Maria DEL ROSARIO MARTINEZ, Defendant.

524 F.Supp.3d 1062

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Maria DEL ROSARIO MARTINEZ, Defendant.

Case No. 19cr5218-MMA

United States District Court, S.D. California.

Signed March 10, 2021

524 F.Supp.3d 1063

Ryan A. Sausedo, DOJ - U.S. Attorney's Office, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE

MICHAEL M. ANELLO, United States District Judge

On January 16, 2020, Defendant Maria Del Rosario Martinez pleaded guilty to a single-count Information charging her with importing approximately 51.04 pounds of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. See Doc. No. 19. The Court sentenced Defendant to a custodial term of thirty (30) months. See Doc. No. 31. Defendant is currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California ("FCI Dublin"); she is set to be released from the Bureau of Prisons' custody on January 13, 2022.¹ Defendant, proceeding through counsel, now moves this Court for a reduction in her sentence pursuant to

524 F.Supp.3d 1064

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018. See Doc. Nos. 34, 38. The government filed a response in opposition to Defendant's motion, to which Defendant replied. See Doc. Nos. 39, 40. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion.

DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks early release and a corresponding reduction in her custodial sentence due to the spread of the novel coronavirus disease, COVID-19, throughout the federal prison system, including the institution where she is currently housed. Defendant argues that she suffers from serious health conditions, including obesity, hypertension, anemia, osteoporosis, and depression, which combined with her age (60), increase the risk of serious health conditions if she contracts the virus. See Doc. No. 34 at 8-16;² see generally SEALED Def. Ex. D. Defendant further asserts that "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction" in her sentence based on a family situation resulting from the murder of her son-in-law just prior to her incarceration. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) ; see Doc. No. 34 at 18-19.

The government opposes Defendant's motion. The government notes that while the virus has spread through the prison system, the Bureau of Prisons has implemented precautionary measures to help ensure the safety of all inmates during the COVID-19 pandemic. The government also points out – and Defendant does not dispute – that Defendant has been inoculated against the virus; she has received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.³ See Doc. No. 39 at 2; Doc. No. 40 at 8. The government concedes that the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support Defendant's early release, but maintains that Defendant cannot meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating "extraordinary and compelling reasons" to justify a reduction in her sentence.

1. Relevant Law

In 1984, Congress authorized compassionate release from prison under the criteria set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, Pub. L. 98–473, S. 1762, 98 Stat. 1976. Under its original terms, only the Director of the Bureau of Prisons was authorized to file a motion for compassionate release pursuant to section 3582(c)(1)(A). The First Step Act went into effect on December 21, 2018. See First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Section 603(b) of the First Step Act modified section 3582(c)(1)(A), which now provides, in pertinent 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

524 F.Supp.3d 1065

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—

(i) 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) (emphasis added). Many years prior to this modification, the United States Sentencing Commission published a policy statement addressing the standards for early release.⁴ See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The statement reiterates that a court may reduce a term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(1)(A) if "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction" and "after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable." Id. The notes following Section 1B1.13 specify certain circumstances constituting "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that justify a sentence reduction, including: "(A) Medical Condition of the Defendant," "(B) Age of the Defendant," "(C) Family Circumstances," and "(D) Other Reasons."⁵ Id. , cmt. n.1.

The Court previously agreed with other district courts that while the text of section 603(b) of the First Step Act supersedes and contradicts certain aspects of the policy statement's text, in the absence of binding circuit court authority or further action by Congress, trial courts should not consider themselves relieved of their duty to "continue to follow the guidance of the Sentencing Commission's policy statement limiting the scope of ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ that warrant compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)." United States v. Casey , No. 18CR2747-MMA, 2021 WL 662266, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021) (quoting United States v. Lum , No. 18-CR-00073-DKW, 2020 WL 3472908, at *4 (D. Haw. June 25, 2020) (collecting cases)). The Court acknowledges, however, that the weight of non-binding circuit court precedent now favors Defendant's position that section "1B1.13 is not an applicable policy statement for compassionate-release motions brought directly by inmates." United States v. Elias , 984 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing United States v. Jones , 980 F.3d 1098, 1108-11 (6th Cir. 2020) ); see also United States v. Brooker , 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020) (holding "that Application Note 1(D) does not apply to compassionate release motions brought directly to the court by a defendant under the First Step Act."); United States v. Gunn , 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020) (same); United States v. McCoy , 981 F.3d 271, 281-82 (4th Cir. 2020) (same). Accordingly, the Court will not consider the policy statement to be an authoritative or exclusive...