United States v. Stewart

• Decision Date: 26 January 2021
• Docket Number: 10-CR-239S (5)
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DeMARIO STEWART, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DeMARIO STEWART, Defendant.

10-CR-239S (5)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

January 26, 2021

DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Presently before this Court is Defendant DeMario Stewart's pro se Motion for Compassionate Release, which the government opposes.¹ See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A). For the reasons discussed below, Stewart's motion is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

On November 10, 2015, Stewart appeared before this Court and pleaded guilty to a charge of racketeering conspiracy involving murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (d). (Docket Nos. 699, 705.) Four months later, on March 10, 2016, this Court sentenced Stewart to 216 months' imprisonment, 5 years' supervised release, a $100 special assessment, and no fine, fees, or costs. (Docket Nos. 748, 753.) Stewart is presently serving his sentence at FCI Fort Dix, with a release date of April 10, 2026. (Sentence Computation Sheet, Docket No. 865, p. 24.)

On November 16, 2020, Stewart filed a pro se motion for compassionate releaseunder 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i). (Docket No. 862.) He contends that release is warranted because he is at heightened risk of severe illness from COVID-19 due to his medical condition (obesity) and because FCI Fort Dix has not effectively combatted COVID-19. The government opposed Stewart's motion on December 7, 2020. (Docket No. 864.) Briefing concluded on January 4, 2021, with the filing of Stewart's reply, at which time this Court took Stewart's motion under advisement without oral argument. (Docket No. 865.) Stewart thereafter file a Motion to Amend/Supplement his submissions with additional information about the circumstances at FCI Fort Dix on January 15, 2021. (Docket No. 866.) That motion will be granted, and the record should reflect that this Court has considered the supplemental information in reaching its decision below.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Compassionate Release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i)

"A court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except pursuant to statute." United States v. Gotti, 433 F. Supp. 3d 613, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). One such statute is 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i) which, as amended by the First Step Act of 2018,² provides as follows:

The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that—in any case—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; . . . and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.

The defendant carries the burden of showing that he or she is entitled to a sentence reduction under the statute. See United States v. Ebbers, 432 F. Supp. 3d 421, 426-27 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). A defendant proceeding on his or her own motion may meet that burden by demonstrating (1) that he or she satisfied the statutory exhaustion requirement, (2) that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist for a sentence reduction, and (3) that a sentence reduction is consistent with the applicable Sentencing Guidelines provisions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i); United States v. Perez, 451 F. Supp. 3d 288, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). If the court finds, after consideration of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors, that the defendant has met this burden, it may reduce the defendant's sentence under the statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i); see also United States v. Gileno, 448 F. Supp. 3d 183, 185 (D. Conn. 2020).

The statutory exhaustion requirement is mandatory and "must be strictly enforced." United States v. Monzon, No. 99 Cr. 157, 2020 WL 550220, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2020) (citing Theodoropoulos v. I.N.S., 358 F.3d 162, 172 (2d Cir. 2004)); United States v. Cassidy, 17-CR-116S, 2020 WL 1969303, at *3-8 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2020) (finding exhaustion mandatory). The exhaustion requirement is met when the earlier of two circumstances occurs: (1) the defendant fully exhausts all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion to modify an imposed term ofimprisonment on his or her behalf,³ or (2) 30 days lapse from the date the warden of the defendant's facility receives the defendant's request to file such a motion on his or her behalf. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A).

Congress delegated to the Sentencing Commission the task of "describ[ing] what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction" under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i). See 28 U.S.C. § 994 (t). The Commission, in turn, promulgated a Policy Statement concerning sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A) in § 1B1.13 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The Commentary to that section contains four examples of circumstances that constitute "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for a sentence reduction: "Medical Condition of the Defendant"; "Age of the Defendant"; "Family Circumstances"; and "Other Reasons". See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.

At issue here are the "Medical Condition of the Defendant" and "Other Reasons"examples. The "Medical Condition of the Defendant" example provides as follows:

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.

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 comment n. 1 (A).

The "Other Reasons" example is a catch-all provision encompassing "an extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination with, the [other] reasons described."⁴ Id. n. 1 (D).

As it relates to the requirement that a sentence reduction be consistent with theapplicable Sentencing Guidelines provisions, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is once again the relevant provision. It provides that a court may reduce a sentence if, after consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors, it determines that

(1) (A) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction; or

(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.

See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.

Finally, district courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny motions for sentence reduction. See Gileno, 448 F. Supp. 3d at 186.

B. Stewart's Motion for Compassionate Release

1. Exhaustion of Administrative Rights

As indicated above, 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A) contains a threshold exhaustion requirement. To satisfy this requirement, a defendant must demonstrate that either (1) he or she fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion to modify an imposed term of imprisonment on his or her behalf, or (2) 30 days have lapsed from the date the warden of the defendant's facility receivedthe defendant's request to file such a motion on his or her behalf. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A).

For reasons discussed at length in two previous decisions (fully incorporated herein), this Court has found that the statutory exhaustion requirement is mandatory and cannot be excused. See Cassidy, 2020 WL 1969303, at *3-8; United States v. Schultz, 454 F. Supp. 3d 217, 220-223 (W.D.N.Y. 2020); accord United States v. Montanez, 458 F. Supp. 3d 146, 149-160 (W.D.N.Y. 2020) (finding § 3582 (c)(1)(A)'s exhaustion requirement mandatory).

Here, Stewart submitted his request for compassionate release to the warden of FCI Fort Dix on October 19, 2020. (Motion for Compassionate Release, p. 6.) The warden reportedly failed to respond. Thirty days having lapsed since October 19, 2020, this Court finds that Stewart has satisfied the statutory exhaustion requirement, and the government concedes as much. (See Memorandum of Law, Docket No. 864, p. 11 n.4.)

2. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons for Sentence Reduction

Stewart has served 122 months of his 216-month sentence. He is 32 years old and claims to suffer from obesity, which he argues makes him highly susceptible to severe illness from COVID-19. Accepting Stewart's representation that he is 6'0" and 237 lbs.,⁵ he has a body mass index of 32.1 and therefore qualifies as obese according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC").⁶ (Reply Memorandum, Docket No. 865, p. 6.) If released, Stewart plans to seek employment and live in his family home inBuffalo, N.Y. (See id. p. 11.)

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, this Court first finds that Stewart's obesity does not constitute an...