Opinion
No. 3:11-cr-0072-JAJ-SBJ
08-11-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JASON WAYLAND BLUNT, Defendant.
ORDER
This matter comes before the court pursuant to a motion filed by defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), seeking a modification of the term of his imprisonment to time served. The Court finds:
1. Defendant was originally sentenced on March 1, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, to a term of imprisonment of 105 months, followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. [Dkt. 74] Defendant's supervised release has been revoked three times. [Dkt. 154, 176, 202] Most recently, on May 15, 2020, defendant was sentenced to an 18-month period of incarceration, with no supervised release to follow. [Dkt. 202] The Court recommended that defendant serve his term in a medical facility. [Dkt. 202 at 2]
2. Defendant claims that he should receive compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), based on the combination of his medical conditions and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant, age 44, describes a series of infections including a kidney infection that required hospitalization, and testicle, tubal and tooth infections. [Dkt. 205 at 1] Defendant states he requires ongoing treatment for a blocked urethra, deteriorated discs, carpal-tunnel syndrome, and nerve damage in his leg. Id.
3. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018), now authorizes the Court to modify a term of imprisonment upon a finding that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction. Compassionate release is not mandatory, even if the court finds an "extraordinary and compelling reason," however. See, e.g., United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Instead, whether to grant such a reduction involves a 4-step analytical scheme, considering the following issues in succession: (1) timing or satisfaction of administrative requirements, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); (2) extraordinary or compelling reasons, see id. at 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); (3) lack of danger to any other person or the community, see U.S.S.G. § 1.B.1.13 (applicable policy statement); and (4) § 3553(a) factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Cf. Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 692-94.
A. At the first step, the administrative exhaustion requirement is satisfied [1] if "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 [2] there has been a "lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Some courts consider this exhaustion requirement to be a claim-processing rule subject to possible equitable tolling, but most consider it jurisdictional or otherwise mandatory. Compare, e.g., United States v. Smith, No. 12 CR. 133 (JFK), 2020 WL 1849748, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2020) (exhaustion is non-jurisdictional), with, e.g., United States v. Lugo, No. 2:19-CR-00056-JAW, 2020 WL 1821010, at *3 (D. Me. Apr. 10, 2020) (even if the exhaustion requirement was not jurisdiction, it was "both clear and mandatory," so that the court could not read an exception into it); United States v. Johnson, No. RDC-14-0441, 2020 WL 1663360, at *3-6 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 2020) (concluding that § 3582(c)(1)(A)'s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional and, regardless, there are no exceptions to the exhaustion requirement).
B. At the second step of the analysis, the defendant must show "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warranting a reduction. Section 3582(c)(1) does not define such reasons. The Sentencing Guidelines do identify such reasons in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, cmt. n.1, however. A defendant's medical conditions may
constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons only if the defendant is suffering from a terminal illness, or if he 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" and the condition substantially diminishes the defendant's ability to provide self-care in prison. Id.
C. At the third step, compassionate release is appropriate only where "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)[.]" U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2); see also United States v. Schmitt, No. CR12-4076-LTS, 2020 WL 96904, at *5 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 8, 2020) (setting out the § 3142(g) factors).
D. If all the preceding requirements have been satisfied, at the fourth step, the court "consider[s] the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable." 28 U.S.C. § 3852(c)(1)(A). The court must provide reasons for its determination based on consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
4. Defendant is currently housed in the Scott County Jail. Because he is not under the control of a warden or other BOP official, he is unable to resort to the standard BOP administrative process. The Court will, therefore, consider defendant to have complied with the exhaustion remedy to the extent that he is able. However, defendant fails to demonstrate that his medical conditions constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release. "A compassionate release due to a medical condition is an extraordinary and rare event." White v. United States, 378 F. Supp. 3d 784 (W.D. Mo. 2019). Even when a medical condition may make confinement more difficult, that alone is not a sufficient basis for compassionate release. See United States v. Malone, No. 1:07CR00037-001, 2019 WL 3337906, at *2 (W.D. Va. July 25, 2019).
5. Although defendant's conditions are serious, they do not rise to the level of "extraordinary and compelling reasons." Defendant's motion was filed only 45 days after he was sentenced. Defendant has not submitted any medical records to demonstrate he is suffering from a severe medical condition and he has not made any allegations that his medical conditions render him unable to engage in self-care in the prison. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic does not change this analysis. The Court sentenced defendant with full awareness of COVID-19 and the Scott County Jail, where defendant is located, does not have any active COVID cases.
6. After consideration of all defendant's arguments, the Court concludes that defendant has not satisfied the requirements for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the June 30, 2020, Motion for Compassionate Release [Dkt. 205] is denied.
DATED this 11th day of August, 2020.
/s/_________
JOHN A. JARVEY, Chief Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA