Id. Although Morales notes in a supplemental filing that USP Lewisburg recently reported 35 positive COVID-19 cases among prisoners, the mere existence of COVID-19 cases does not reflect that BOP is incapable of managing the pandemic within its facilities or otherwise entitle Morales to relief. United States v. Adams, 2020 WL 3026458, at *3 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020) (denying motion for release to prisoner incarcerated in facility with 50 confirmed COVID-19 cases among prisoners). Moreover, the mere likelihood of contracting COVID-19 does not warrant release on its own.
Courts considering defendants' medical vulnerability from COVID-19 ordinarily look to the CDC's guidance on at-risk health populations. See United States v. Rivera, No. 3:13-CR-71-1 (VLB), 2020 WL 3186539, at *4-5 (D. Conn. June 15, 2020); see also, e.g., United States v. Adams, No. 3:16-CR-86-VLB, 2020 WL 3026458, at *2 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020); United States v. McCarthy, No. 3:17-CR-0230 (JCH), 2020 WL 1698732, at *5 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2020). In determining whether a defendant's medical vulnerability to the virus constitutes "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for re-sentencing, courts have considered a multitude of factors in factually intensive inquiries, including: defendants' age, the severity and documented history of their health conditions, defendants' history of managing those conditions in prison, the proliferation and status of infection at defendants' facilities, and the proportion of the term of incarceration that has been served.
Courts considering defendants' medical vulnerability from COVID-19 ordinarily look to the CDC's guidance on at-risk health populations. See United States v. Rivera, No. 3:13-CR-71-1 (VLB), 2020 WL 3186539, at *4-5 (D. Conn. June 15, 2020); see also, e.g., United States v. Adams, No. 3:16-CR-86-VLB, 2020 WL 3026458, at *2 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020); United States v. McCarthy, No. 3:17-CR-0230 (JCH), 2020 WL 1698732, at *5 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2020). For the last several months, the CDC classified underlying health conditions that correlate to an increased risk of severe complications from contracting COVID-19 into two categories: conditions that are known to cause an increased risk of severe illness and those that might increase a person's risk.
Courts considering defendants' medical vulnerability from COVID-19 ordinarily look to the CDC's guidance on at-risk health populations. Rivera, 466 F. Supp. 3d at 315-17; see also, e.g., United States v. Adams, No. 3:16-CR-86-VLB, 2020 WL 3026458, at *2 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020); United States v. McCarthy, No. 3:17-CR-0230 (JCH), 2020 WL 1698732, at *5 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2020). Mr. Cruz is 38 years old, so his age is not a particular risk factor for severe illness.
In cases similar to this case, i.e., involving tax offenses and fraud, courts have concluded that granting the defendant early release would not reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, or provide just punishment. For example, in United States v. Adams, 2020 WL 3026458 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020), where the defendant committed a $4.2 million tax fraud over fifteen years, the court found that: "The [] sentence imposed reflects [defendant's] commission of . . . an offense which involved thousands of acts of deception [and] . . . obstructing collection efforts by [the] IRS . . . . A sentence of time served [] would not reflect the seriousness of the offense or foster respect for the law." Id. at *4.
Courts considering defendants' medical vulnerability from COVID-19 ordinarily look to the CDC's guidance on at-risk health populations. See United States v. Rivera, No. 3:13-cr-00071-1 (VLB), 2020 WL 3186539, at*4-5 (D. Conn. June 15, 2020); see also, e.g., United States v. Adams, No. 3:16-cr-00086 (VLB), 2020 WL 3026458, at *2 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020); United States v. McCarthy, No. 3:17-cr-00230 (JCH), 2020 WL 1698732, at *5 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2020). In determining whether a defendant's medical vulnerability to the virus constitutes "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for re-sentencing, courts have considered a multitude of factors in factually intensive inquiries, including: defendants' age, the severity and documented history of their health conditions, defendants' history of managing those conditions in prison, the proliferation and status of infection at defendants' facilities, and the proportion of the term of incarceration that has been served.
Courts considering defendants' medical vulnerability from COVID-19 ordinarily look to the CDC's guidance on at-risk health populations. See United States v. Rivera, 466 F. Supp. 3d 310, 315 (D. Conn. 2020); see also, United States v. Adams, No. 3:16-CR-86-VLB, 2020 WL 3026458, at *2 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020); United States v. McCarthy, No. 3:17-CR-0230 (JCH), 2020 WL 1698732, at *5 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2020). In determining whether a defendant's medical vulnerability to the virus constitutes "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for re-sentencing, courts have considered a multitude of factors in factually intensive inquiries, including: defendants' age, the severity and documented history of their health conditions, defendants' history of managing those conditions in prison, the proliferation and status of infection at defendants' facilities, and the proportion of the term of incarceration that has been served.
Courts considering defendants' medical vulnerability from COVID-19 ordinarily look to the CDC's guidance on at-risk health populations. See United States v. Rivera, No. 3:13-CR-71-1 (VLB), 2020 WL 3186539, at *4-5 (D. Conn. June 15, 2020); see also, e.g., United States v. Adams, No. 3:16-CR-86-VLB, 2020 WL 3026458, at *2 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020); United States v. McCarthy, No. 3:17-CR-0230 (JCH), 2020 WL 1698732, at *5 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2020). In determining whether a defendant's medical vulnerability to the virus constitutes "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for re-sentencing, courts have considered a multitude of factors in factually intensive inquiries, including: defendants' age, the severity and documented history of their health conditions, defendants' history of managing those conditions in prison, the proliferation and status of infection at defendants' facilities, and the proportion of the term of incarceration that has been served.
It notices this distinction only to observe that Helmstetter's condition is not compelling. United States v. Adams, No. 16-86, 2020 WL 3026458, at *1 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020) (denying compassionate release for a 59-year-old with hypertension); United States v. Takewell, No. 14-36, 2020 WL 4043060, at *5 (W.D. La. July 17, 2020) (denying compassionate release for a defendant suffering from hypertension and obesity); United States v. Alexander, No. 14-126, 2020 WL 2468773, at *5 (M.D. La. May 13, 2020) (denying compassionate release because, among other reasons, hypertension was not by itself sufficiently extraordinary); United States v. Roberts, No. 15-135, 2020 WL 2130999, at *3 (W.D. La. May 5, 2020) (stating that the defendant's "proffered reason of hypertension fails to meet the standard for compassionate release"). 2. Other Possible Reasons
Courts considering defendants' medical vulnerability from COVID-19 ordinarily look to the CDC's guidance on at-risk health populations. See United States v. Rivera, 466 F. Supp. 3d 310, 315 (D. Conn. 2020); see also, United States v. Adams, No. 3:16-CR-86-VLB, 2020 WL 3026458, at *2 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020); United States v. McCarthy, No. 3:17-CR-0230 (JCH), 2020 WL 1698732, at *5 (D. Conn. Apr. 8, 2020). In determining whether a defendant's medical vulnerability to the virus constitutes "extraordinary and compelling" reasons for re-sentencing, courts have considered a multitude of factors in factually intensive inquiries, including: defendants' age, the severity and documented history of their health conditions, defendants' history of managing those conditions in prison, the proliferation and status of infection at defendants' facilities, and the proportion of the term of incarceration that has been served.