United States v. Harding

10 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Hancock

    No. 3:12-cr-00015 (VAB) (D. Conn. Jan. 8, 2021)   Cited 7 times
    In Hancock, for example, the Court explicitly observed that Mr. Hancock had "received only one disciplinary ticket during his over nine years in federal prison," with the most recent ticket occurring "nearly two years" earlier and "follow[ing] what apparently were seven years without incident."

    Some courts in this District, and others within this Circuit, have concluded that merely being "overweight" does not qualify as an extraordinary and compelling circumstance warranting release. See, e.g., United States v. Peralta, No. 19-cr-135 (VEC), 2020 WL 6683095, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2020) ("[A]bsent any additional comorbidities and considering that he is only 28 years old, Mr. Peralta cannot establish extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying compassionate release solely on being overweight."); United States v. Broadus, No. 17-cr-787-2 (RJS), 2020 WL 3001040, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2020) ("[T]he mere allegation that one is overweight, in prison, and that there is a COVID-19 outbreak nationwide is not sufficiently extraordinary and compelling to justify early release.") (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted); United States v. Harding, No. 3:14-cr-226 (MPS), 2020 WL 2988955 at *3 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020) (slip op.) (finding that a movant with a BMI of 29.4 was classified as "overweight" and therefore he "d[id] not have one of the underlying health conditions that the CDC has identified as being high risk"). This Court, however, has previously granted compassionate release even where a movant's "body mass index [wa]s not high enough to create the highest risk," where the individual also had hypertension and the individual's age, 58, "magnifie[d] the risk."

  2. United States v. Merritt

    No. 5:17-CR-306-BR (E.D.N.C. Oct. 13, 2020)

    Having a history of obesity is not a CDC high-risk factor. See Halladene v. Decker, No. 20 Civ. 2883 (GBD), 2020 WL 5210995, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2020); United States v. Harding, No. 3:14cr226 (MPS), 2020 WL 2988955, at *3 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020). Currently, at USP Big Sandy, where defendant is incarcerated, 7 inmates are positive for COVID-19, and 44 inmates and staff have recovered from the infection.

  3. United States v. Johnson

    No. 3:18-cr-00162 (MPS) (D. Conn. Aug. 3, 2020)   Cited 11 times
    Granting compassionate release where the defendant had "not had any disciplinary incidents [in pretrial detention] or in BOP custody" despite a lengthy criminal history

    Because the Sentencing Commission has not updated its policy statement applicable to Section 3582(c)(1)(A), see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, to take account of the defendant's statutory right to file a motion with the Court after exhausting remedies, I have previously found that the provisions of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13—though still providing useful guidance—are obsolete, and thus that the statutory language requiring that the sentence reduction be "consistent with applicable policy statements by the Sentencing Commission" is not currently operative. See United States v. Harding, 2020 WL 2988955, at *1 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 2020 WL 1627331, at *4 (E.D. Pa. April 1, 2020). This right was established by the First Step Act, Pub. L. No.115-391, enacted in 2018; prior to that, only the Director of the BOP could file a motion under Section 3582(c)(1)(A).

  4. United States v. Murtha

    No. 3:17-cr-00180 (MPS) (D. Conn. Jul. 27, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Because the Sentencing Commission has not updated its policy statement applicable to Section 3582(c)(1)(A), see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, to take account of the defendant's statutory right to file a motion with the Court after exhausting remedies, I have previously found that the provisions of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13—though still providing useful guidance—are obsolete, and thus that the statutory language requiring that the sentence reduction be "consistent with applicable policy statements by the Sentencing Commission" is not currently operative. See United States v. Harding, 2020 WL 2988955, at *1 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 2020 WL 1627331, at *4 (E.D. Pa. April 1, 2020). This right was established by the First Step Act, Pub. L. No.115-391, enacted in 2018; prior to that, only the Director of the BOP could file a motion under Section 3582(c)(1)(A).

  5. United States v. Smith

    CRIMINAL NO. 9-187 (W.D. Pa. Jul. 20, 2020)   Cited 55 times
    In Smith, the defendant's projected release date was September 13, 2022 but due to his acceptance into the RDAP program his release date would move up by one year.

    P has instituted extensive precautionary measures to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 across the federal prison system. ... The court must predict whether COVID-19 will spread within FCI Terre Haute despite precautionary protocols, further whether Defendant will contract COVID-19, and finally whether Defendant will develop serious symptoms, if any symptoms at all.See also, United States v. Mazzo, 2020 WL 3410819 (D. Conn. June 22, 2020) (extraordinary and compelling reasons do not exist where the defendant has asthma serious enough to require the use of multiple inhalers, but which medical records demonstrate the BOP is managing); United States v. Wheeler, 2020 WL 2801289, at * 3 (D.D.C. May 29, 2020) (denying Compassionate Release because mild asthma does not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason); United States v. Perez, 3030 WL 3639739 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2020) (finding that "mild intermittent asthma" does not create such a high risk of COVID-19 that it warrants release); United States v. Harding, 2020 WL 2988955 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020); United States v. Towel, 2020 WL 2992528 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2020); United States v. Brown, 2020 WL 2812776 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2020); and United States v. Crawford, No. , 2020 WL 2537507 (W.D. Va. May 19, 2020). The cases the Defendant relies on are distinguishable.

  6. United States v. Slone

    CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 16-400 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 30, 2020)   Cited 36 times
    Concluding that prisoner with mild but persistent asthma was not entitled to compassionate release

    That is not enough."Id.; see also Harding, No. 14-226, 2020 WL 2988955, at *1 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020) (holding a 34-year-old with mild asthma did not qualify for compassionate release). Towel, 2020 WL 2992528, at *2.

  7. United States v. Torres

    CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 18-414 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 29, 2020)   Cited 32 times
    Finding no extraordinary and compelling reasons for release when defendant's symptoms did not match his claims of severe asthma

    Under the present circumstances, the Court does not find extraordinary and compelling reasons that warrant a reduction of Leon's sentence."). Recent decisions from other district courts: United States v. Ramos, 15-00210, 2020 WL 3440929, at *6 (D.Hawaii June 23, 2020) (although suffering from chronic asthma, evidence shows asthma is controlled with medication and defendant failed to demonstrate she is at a higher risk or particularly vulnerable to contracting COVID-19 and suffering from serious complications thus there is no extraordinary and compelling reason for sentence reduction); United States v. Okpalobi, No. 13-cr-101, 2020 WL 3429939, at *2-*3 (E.D. La. June 23, 2020) (asthma requiring use of inhaler less than weekly, hypertension, coronary disease, and bronchitis do not do not meet the "extraordinary and compelling" reasons standard); United States v. Harding, No. 14-226, 2020 WL 2988955, at *2-*3 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020) (thirty-four year old defendant suffering from mild intermittent asthma, is "stable" and controlled and does not render him vulnerable); United States v. Wheeler, No. 19-85, 2020 WL 2801289, at *3-*4 (D.D.C. May 29, 2020) ("mild intermittent asthma" not considered to be an extraordinary and compelling reason for release); United States v. Evans, No. 13-67, 2020 WL 2543142, at *3-*4 (D. Del. May 19, 2020) (records show defendant as generally young individual with mild asthma and does not demonstrate extraordinary and compelling circumstances). The objective medical evidence presented by Mr. Torres shows mild asthma which is not a risk factor for severe illness from COVID-19, his condition appears to be controlled by medication, and there are currently no cases of COVID-19 at FCI Coleman-Low.

  8. United States v. Quintana

    No. 3:18-CR-216-VLB (D. Conn. Jun. 24, 2020)

    In light of this record, Mr. Quintana, who is 28, has not demonstrated that his asthma renders him especially vulnerable. [ECF No. 70 at 2]; see United States v. Harding, No. 3:14CR226 (MPS), 2020 WL 2988955, at *2 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020) (denying compassionate release to 34 year old man diagnosed with "stable and controlled" "mild intermittent asthma"); United States v. Belle, 2020 WL 2129412, at *5 (D. Conn. May 5, 2020) (denying compassionate release to a 26 year old man with asthma for which he is prescribed an albuterol inhaler but who has not suffered "an asthma exacerbation in years"). Therefore, the Court finds that Mr. Quintana has not provided an extraordinary or compelling reason for release on this basis.

  9. United States v. Jones

    No. 3:13-cr-00002 (MPS) (D. Conn. Jun. 24, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    Because the Sentencing Commission has not updated its policy statement applicable to Section 3582(c)(1)(A), see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, to take account of the defendant's statutory right to file a motion with the Court after exhausting remedies, I have previously found that the provisions of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13—though still providing useful guidance—are obsolete, and thus that the statutory language requiring that the sentence reduction be "consistent with applicable policy statements by the Sentencing Commission" is not currently operative. See United States v. Harding, 2020 WL 2988955, at *1 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 2020 WL 1627331, at *4 (E.D. Pa. April 1, 2020). This right was established by the First Step Act, Pub. L. No.115-391, enacted in 2018; prior to that, only the Director of the BOP could file a motion under Section 3582(c)(1)(A).

  10. United States v. Gonzalez

    18-cr-141 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 23, 2020)   Cited 2 times
    In United States v. Gonzalez, 2020 WL 3428137 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2020), the defendant was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm an offense which -- much like Torres's offense -- involved "fir[ing] a gun at [an] individual[] at mid-day on a... residential street."

    The defendant's "intermittent" asthma is not, in and of itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason for immediate release in light of the minimal risk it poses to the defendant for severe illness if the defendant were to contract COVID-19. See United States v. Harding, No. 14-cr-226, 2020 WL 2988955, at *2 (D. Conn. June 4, 2020) (finding that a 34 year old with "mild intermittent" asthma failed to demonstrate that his asthma rises to a level to make him especially vulnerable to severe illness from COVID-19 and collecting cases). The Government notes that the defendant appears on MDC's high-risk list because of his "asthma", not because his asthma is "moderate to severe" as that term is understood by medical professionals.