Opinion
3:09-cr-365-BTM
12-16-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TRAVIS CHELBERG, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE AND MOTION FOR SUBPOENAS RELATING TO MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant Travis Chelberg has filed a motion to reduce his sentenc pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), relating his recent revocation of supervise release, and alleging dental and medical issues. Defendant has provided n evidence that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. See United State v. Wholecheese, 845 Fed.Appx. 655, 656 (9th Cir. 2021) (“the district court lacke authority to address [defendant's compassionate release] motion” because “[t]h record show[ed] that [defendant] did not fulfill [the administrative exhaustio requirement prior to filing his compassionate release motion in the district court”
Defendant's motion for release under § 3582(c) is DENIED WITHOU PREJUDICE.
Defendant has also filed a motion for subpoenas related to his compassionate release motion. Because the Court has denied Defendant's motion for compassionate release, Defendant's motion for subpoenas is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.