Opinion
1:15-cr-20165-GAYLES
01-13-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LAZARO CANDELARIA, Defendant.
OMNIBUS ORDER
DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Lazaro Candelaria's pro se Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances and Compassionate Release [D.E. 598], Motion to Supplement (Addon) to Petitioner's Response to the Government Response to Petitioner's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) Compassionate Release/Home Confinement [D.E. 606], and Motion to Supplement (Add-on) to Petitioner's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) Motion for Compassionate Release [D.E. 636] (collectively, the “Motions”). The Court has considered the Motions, the Presentence Investigation Report, and the record and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, the Motions are denied.
The Court liberally construes the Motions as a compassionate release request because Defendant proceeds pro se. Winthrop-Redin v. United States, 767 F.3d 1210, 1215 (11th Cir. 2014) (“[Courts] liberally construe pro se filings . . . .” (citation omitted)).
BACKGROUND
Defendant is a 44-year-old incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution Miami (“FCI Miami”) in Miami, Florida, with a projected release date of July 28, 2026. On December 16, 2015, the Court sentenced Defendant to a 160-month term of imprisonment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. [D.E. 455 at 1-2]. The Court also sentenced Defendant to a four-year term of supervised release following his release. Id. at 3. On December 23, 2015, Defendant appealed the Court's sentence, [D.E. 466], and on January 10, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sentence, [D.E. 545].
On December 7, 2020, Defendant filed his Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances and Compassionate Release. [D.E. 598]. On January 11, 2021, Defendant filed his Motion to Supplement (Add-on) to Petitioner's Response to the Government Response to Petitioner's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) Compassionate Release/Home Confinement. [D.E. 606]. On December 10, 2021, Defendant filed his Motion to Supplement (Add-on) to Petitioner's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) Motion for Compassionate Release. [D.E. 636]. In his Motions, Defendant seeks compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. [D.E. 598]. Defendant states that his “debilitating medical conditions coupled with the COVID-19 crisis, rises to the level of extraordinary and compelling” reasons warranting his release. Id. at 6. Defendant states that his health is deteriorating and that he suffers from heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, lung and breathing problems, poor blood circulation, enlarged heart, high blood pressure, and a recent surgery involving his heart. Id. at 7. Although Defendant does not state when he made his first request for compassionate release with the Warden of FCI Miami, the Warden denied his first request on June 12, 2020. Id. at 17. On June 26, 2020, Defendant made a second request for compassionate release with the Warden of FCI Miami, which the Warden denied on July 1, 2020. Id. at 18.
LEGAL STANDARD
A court has limited authority to modify a sentence of imprisonment. United States v. Burkes, No. 9:18-CR-80113, 2020 WL 2308315, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 8, 2020) (citing United States v. Phillips, 597 F.3d 1190, 1194-95 (11th Cir. 2010)). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, as modified by the First Step Act of 2018, courts may reduce a term of imprisonment
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 . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (2018); see generally First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. If the defendant satisfies those administrative requirements and the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support release, courts must then find that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction . . . consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2018).
Courts must also find that the defendant is “not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community . . . .” U.S. Sent'g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(2) (U.S. Sent'g Comm'n 2018).
Thus, in order to grant the Motion, the Court must make specific findings that: (1) the § 3553(a) factors support Defendant's compassionate release; (2) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant Defendant's request; and (3) Defendant is not a danger to the safety of other persons or the community. The burden lies with Defendant to establish that his request is warranted. See United States v. Hylander, No. 18-CR-60017, 2020 WL 1915950, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 20, 2020) (citing United States v. Hamilton, 715 F.3d 328, 337 (11th Cir. 2013)).
DISCUSSION
The Government argues that the Motions should be denied because: (1) Defendant fails to show “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that warrant his release; (2) Defendant remains a danger to the community; and (3) the § 3553(a) factors do not warrant release. As an initial matter, the Government concedes-and the Court agrees-that Defendant has properly exhausted his administrative remedies. [D.E. 600 at 9]. However, the Court finds that Defendant's Motions fail on the merits because he fails to show that he is not a danger to the safety of other persons or the community.
In determining whether Defendant is a danger to the community, the Court must consider: (1) “the nature and circumstances of the offense charged;” (2) “the weight of the evidence against” Defendant; (3) “the history and characteristics of” Defendant; and (4) “the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by [Defendant's] release.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Here, Defendant argues that he “does not have a violent or extensive criminal history and therefore is not a danger to society because of his medical condition.” [D.E. 598 at 5]. The Court disagrees. At the time of the offense, Defendant was a member of a gang which trafficked in significant amounts of narcotics. [D.E. 441 at 5-23]. Defendant has an extensive criminal history that includes felony drug and violent crime convictions. Id. at 26-32. When previously sentenced to probation, Defendant had multiple technical and new offense violations. Id. at 26-27, 29. Therefore, he is not a good candidate for court-ordered supervision. Based on his criminal history and the nature and circumstances of his instant offenses, the Court finds that Defendant remains a danger to the community such that release is not warranted. United States v. Wooden, No. 17-CR-20045, 2021 WL 796495, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 2, 2021) (citing United States v. Williams, No. 3:04CR95/MCR, 2020 WL 1751545, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 1, 2020)). Therefore, the Motions shall be denied.
In Defendant's Motion to Supplement (Add-on) to Petitioner's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) Motion for Compassionate Release, he seeks to challenge his conviction because he argues that he was improperly deemed a career offender. [D.E. 636]. However, as the Government aptly notes, a motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 is not the proper avenue for raising such claims.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant Lazaro Candelaria's pro se Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for Extraordinary and Compelling Circumstances and Compassionate Release, [D.E. 598], is DENIED.
2. Defendant' s pro se Motion to Supplement (Add-on) to Petitioner's Response to the Government Response to Petitioner's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) Compassionate Release/Home Confinement, [D.E. 606], is DENIED as moot.
3. Defendant's pro se Motion to Supplement (Add-on) to Petitioner's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) Motion for Compassionate Release, [D.E. 636], is DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED.