Opinion
6:10-cr-60051-MC
05-09-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM FILLINGAME, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael J. McShane United States District Judge
MCSHANE, Judge:
Defendant William Fillingame moves to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). ECF No. 23. Because Defendant does not demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying compassionate release, the Court DENIES his motion to reduce his sentence.
LEGAL STANDARD
Congress, through the First Step Act, amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow a defendant to file a motion directly with the district court for compassionate relief after exhausting all administrative remedies. The Court may reduce a defendant's sentence if:
(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or
(ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served 30 years in prison, pursuant to a sentence imposed under section 3559(c), for the offense or offenses for which the defendant is currently imprisoned, and a determination has been made by the
Director of the BOP that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the community, as provided under section 3142(g);
(iii) and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
The pertinent policy statement for sentence reductions related to medical ailments is found at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. “Circumstances that may present extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce a defendant's sentence include a ‘terminal illness (i.e., a serious and advanced illness with an end-of-life trajectory)' or ‘a serious physical or medical condition . . . that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he . . . is not expected to recover.'” United States v. Bunnell, No. CR1400119001PHXDGC, 2019 WL 6114599, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 18, 2019) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, Application Note 1).
At this time, “the Sentencing Commission has not yet issued a policy statement ‘applicable' to § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant.” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). Yet while U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is not binding, “[t]he Sentencing Commissions statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 may inform a district court's discretion for [compassionate release] motions filed by a defendant.” Id. (citing United States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020)). “[U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2)] recommends that courts not reduce sentences of individuals who would present a danger to the community upon release . . . and the Court finds that to be an appropriate consideration.” United States v. Blick, No. CR17-0216-JCC, 2021 WL 1313110, at *1 (W.D. Wash Apr. 8, 2021) (citing United States v. Arceneaux, 830 Fed.Appx. 859 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming denial of a compassionate release motion because the defendant remained a danger to the community)).
DISCUSSION
Defendant argues the increased risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19 resulting from his hypertension and stage three kidney disease present extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying compassionate release. The Court disagrees.
Defendant is 57 years old and serving a 180-month sentence for illegal possession of a firearm. He is scheduled for release in June 2023. Defendant is incarcerated at Lompoc Federal Correctional Complex. As of June 9, 2021, Lompoc has no current staff or inmates with positive COVID-19 tests. See generally COVID-19 Coronavirus, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus. Defendant tested positive for COVID-19 in April 2021 and appears to have fully recovered. Def.'s Mot. 2.
While the Court notes that Defendant's medical conditions place him at heightened risk of death or serious illness from COVID-19, Lompoc has provided 1180 inmates with the COVID-19 vaccine to date. https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited June 9, 2021). And as noted, Defendant already recovered from COVID-19 and, as of this writing, there are no positive COVID-19 cases at the facility. In short, the current conditions do not present extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying compassionate release.
Additionally, the Court cannot conclude that Defendant no longer presents a danger to society. While Defendant is nearly 60 years old, he was 45 years old and still on supervised release when he sold firearms to an informant, leading to the sentence he is currently serving.Prior to that offense, Defendant served a lengthy federal sentence (from 1992-2006) for manufacturing methamphetamine. And as noted in the government's memorandum, Defendant has a lengthy criminal history dating back to 1981. Within the past year, Defendant was sanctioned for possessing a cellular phone in prison. Ex. 2 to Gov't Resp; ECF No. 29.
Prior to being arrested for the current offense, Defendant's supervision was revoked for associating with known motorcycle gang members.
The Court notes that other than the cellphone sanction, Defendant has only one other minor disciplinary sanction during the decade he has served of the current sentence. Still, Defendant's lengthy criminal history over the past 30 years, along with the fact that Defendant sold firearms while on supervision, prevent the Court from concluding that Defendant no longer poses a danger to the community.
Finally, the Court declines Defendant's invitation to revisit whether his prior convictions for Oregon delivery of a controlled substance qualify as a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Defendant has procedures available to challenge his current confinement as exceeding the statutory maximum sentence. In other words, the Court declines to turn a motion for compassionate release into a motion attacking his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or §2241.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's Motion to Reduce Sentence, ECF No. 23, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.