United States v. Sandoval

• Decision Date: 10 June 2020
• Docket Number: CASE NO. CR14-5105RBL
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LUIS HERNANDEZ SANDOVAL, Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LUIS HERNANDEZ SANDOVAL, Defendant.

CASE NO. CR14-5105RBL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

June 10, 2020

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Sandoval's Motion to Reduce Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (Compassionate Release). [Dkt. #564]. The Court has reviewed the materials filed for and against the motion. Oral argument is not necessary. The Court DENIES the motion for the reason proffered by the Government. Sandoval is a serious criminal who spread pain and suffering to the communities of Puget Sound, he has serious medical conditions and has been incarcerated at the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (USMCFP) at Springfield, Missouri, which is best capable to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. This Court does not believe "Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances" justify reduction in Mr. Sandoval's sentence.

The Court accepts the analysis provided by the Government as follows:

I. FACTS

A. Sandoval's Conviction and Sentence.

Sandoval was a leader of a drug distribution ring in Pierce County. As shown by a multi-month wiretap investigation, Sandoval's role in the conspiracy was to arrange the shipment of large loads of drugs to re-distributors. Sandoval coordinated the shipment of methamphetamine, from out of state, into the Tacoma area. Sandoval also coordinated the acquisition of heroin from a local supplier and directed it to others to re-distribute. To receive these shipments of drugs, and to send these drugs to re-distributors, Sandoval worked closely with his sons, Juan Hernandez and Jaime Hernandez, who were also defendants in this case.

On February 25, 2014, Sandoval was arrested along with other members of the conspiracy. Sandoval has remained in custody since that date. His current projected release date is September 2, 2022.

On January 23, 2015, Sandoval pleaded guilty to Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine and Heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846. At his sentencing in April 2015, based on his various health issues (further described below), Sandoval sought a five-year sentence, the mandatory minimum for the offense to which he pleaded. The Court sentenced Sandoval to 120 months' imprisonment. Sandoval's sons were both sentenced to 12-year terms of imprisonment.

B. Sandoval's Medical Conditions.

As set forth in the presentence report, Sandoval has a series of serious medical conditions. He suffered a stroke in 2005 that impacted the use of his right side. He has type II diabetes which led to a kidney transplant in 2011. He also had elevated blood pressure. These issues impaired his mobility and at that time Sandoval used a cane and/or wheelchair.

Based on his prison medical records, Sandoval continues to suffer from the same conditions. (He is incarcerated at the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (USMCFP) at Springfield, Missouri, because of his medical needs.) Currently, Sandoval continues to take immune-suppressive medications related to his kidney transplant. He is taking heart medication. His diabetes appears to be causing him medical issues, including two diabetic issues in the past 8 months, including an incident where the doctors believed that he had seizures.

II. ANALYSIS

A. The Legal Standards for Compassionate Release.

As amended by the First Step Act of 2018, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) permits an inmate satisfying certain conditions to file a motion with the district court seeking "compassionate release." Before such a motion can be filed, the statute provides that the defendant must either exhaust administrative review of the denial of a request made to the Bureau of Prisons, or wait until 30 days have passed after the request is made to the warden, whichever is earlier. As relevant to Sandoval's motion, the statute now reads:

(c) The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that—

(1) in any case—

(A) the 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—

(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or

* * *

and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission[.]

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to draft the policy statement referenced in the statute in 28 U.S.C. § 994(f) which provides:

The Commission, in promulgating general policy statements regarding the sentencing modification provisions in section 3582(c)(1)(A) of title 18, shall describe what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of specific examples. Rehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.

1. USSG § 1B1.13 Defines "Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances."

The policy statement referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 994(f) is found at USSG § 1B1.13. It provides:

Upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the court may reduce a term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment) if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable, the court determines that—

(1) (A) Extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction;

(B) The defendant (i) is at least 70 years old; and (ii) has served at least 30 years in prison pursuant to a sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c) for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is imprisoned;

(2) The defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); and

(3) The reduction is consistent with this policy statement.

The Sentencing Commission's application notes to this policy statement provide further guidance. As directed by 28 U.S.C. § 924(t), the application notes define what constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" to support a reduction in sentence. Specifically,application note 1 provides that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist under the following circumstances:

(A) Medical Condition of the Defendant. —

(i) The defendant is suffering from a terminal illness (i.e., a serious and advanced illness with an end of life trajectory). A specific prognosis of life expectancy (i.e., a probability of death within a specific time period) is not required. Examples include metastatic solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced dementia.

(ii) The defendant is—

(I) suffering from a serious physical or medical condition,

(II) suffering from a serious functional or cognitive impairment, or

(III) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of the aging process,

that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.

(B) Age of the Defendant. — The defendant (i) is at least 65 years old; (ii) is experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process; and (iii) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less

USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1. The application note also provides that extraordinary and compelling reasons may include certain described family circumstances, or other reasons as determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and that "[t]he court is in a unique position to determine whether the circumstances warrant a reduction (and, if so, the amount of reduction), after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the criteria set forth in this policy statement, such as the defendant's medical condition, the defendant's family circumstances, and whether the defendant is a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community." USSG § 1B1.13 cmt. n.4.

2. The Policy Statement Is Binding.

Based on the text of § 3582(c)(1)(A), the policy statement referenced in § 3582(c)(1), like that referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), see USSG § 1B1.10, is binding on this Court and controls how this Court is to exercise of discretion. Cf. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). In Dillon, the Supreme Court addressed the identical language if "such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission" contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Court held that based on this language, the Commission's pertinent policy statement is binding on district courts and any limitations contained in that Guideline is a limitation a district court's discretion to reduce sentences. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826.

Dillon emphasized that a sentence reduction under Section 3582(c)(2) "represents a congressional act of lenity intended to give prisoners the benefit of later enacted adjustments to the judgments reflected in the Guidelines." Id. at 828. Section 3582(c)(1)(A), like the companion statutory provision addressed in Dillon, also rests on a limited act of Congressional lenity. Both subsections follow the same prefatory language that makes unassailably...