From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Pimentel-Chavez

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Jun 16, 2021
No. 20CR2227-JLS (S.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2021)

Opinion

20CR2227-JLS

06-16-2021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CARLA LETICIA PIMENTAL-CHAVEZ


ORDER ON MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

(COMPASSIONATE RELEASE)

Hon. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

Upon motion of the defendant for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (ECF No. 35) and after considering the applicable factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is DENIED after complete review of the motion on the merits.

FACTORS CONSIDERED:

Defendant has failed to establish a basis for compassionate relief under Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Defendant claims that extraordinary and compelling reasons for release exist under a provision of the form motion which provides “the caregiver of my minor child or children has died or become incapacitated and I am the only available caregiver for my child or children.”However, Defendant also indicates that she is seeking release to a halfway house to provide financial assistance to her sister who has her 3-year-old son and her mother-in-law who has her 4-month-old baby. Defendant does not demonstrate that either caregiver has become incapacitated, or that she is the only available caregiver. The desire to provide financial assistance to one's children who are in the care of family members, while certainly understandable, does not constitute an “extraordinary and compelling” basis for compassionate release.

This provision likely stems from the Application Notes to U.S. Sentencing Guideline §1B1.13, which sets forth the policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission regarding 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Although the Ninth Circuit has determined that this policy statement is not applicable to motions filed by a defendant under the recently amended § 3582(c)(1)(A), the court recognized that it may inform a district court's discretion. United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2021).

Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Pimentel-Chavez

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Jun 16, 2021
No. 20CR2227-JLS (S.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2021)
Case details for

United States v. Pimentel-Chavez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CARLA LETICIA PIMENTAL-CHAVEZ

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Jun 16, 2021

Citations

No. 20CR2227-JLS (S.D. Cal. Jun. 16, 2021)