Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:18-CR-46-4
08-21-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ANTHONY HOWARD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the court is Defendant Anthony Howard's ("Howard") Motion for Compassionate Release (#1070), wherein he requests that the court order his immediate release from prison pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) due to the threat of Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19"). The Government opposes the motion. After conducting an investigation, United States Probation and Pretrial Services ("Probation") recommends denying the motion. Also pending before the court is Howard's Motion to Appoint Counsel (#1071). Having considered the motions, the Government's response, Probation's recommendation, the record, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the motions should be denied.
I. Background
On November 15, 2018, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Texas returned a Fourth Superseding Indictment charging Howard and 27 others in Count I with Conspiracy to Possess with the Intent to Manufacture and Distribute Methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A). On February 19, 2019, Howard pleaded guilty to the offense pursuant to a binding plea agreement. On August 27, 2019, the court sentenced Howard to 240 months' imprisonment, followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. He is currently housed at Federal Correctional Institution Texarkana, located in Texarkana, Texas ("FCI Texarkana"). Howard's projected release date is July 28, 2035.
II. Appointment of Counsel
Howard requests the appointment of counsel to assist him with his motion for compassionate release. There is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in post-conviction proceedings. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) ("The right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further."); see Garza v. Idaho, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 738, 749 (2019); McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494-95 (1991); Whitaker v. Collier, 862 F.3d 490, 501 (5th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1172 (2018); In re Sepulvado, 707 F.3d 550, 554 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 952 (2013).
The court, however, may, in the interest of justice, appoint counsel to assist a defendant in the pursuit of post-conviction relief where a defendant has raised nonfrivolous claims with factually and/or legally complex issues. See United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir. 1995) ("After [a defendant's first appeal], the decision whether to appoint counsel rests in the discretion of the district court.").
The exercise of discretion in this area is guided . . . by certain basic principles. When applying this standard and exercising its discretion in this field, the court should determine both whether the petition presents significant legal issues, and if the appointment of counsel will benefit the petitioner and the court in addressing this claim.United States v. Molina-Flores, No. 3:16-CR-130-N (19), 2018 WL 10050316, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2018) (quoting Jackson v. Coleman, No. 3:11-cv-1837, 2012 WL 4504485, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2012)); see Scoggins v. MacEachern, No. 04-10814-PBS, 2010 WL 3169416, at *1 (D. Mass. Aug. 10, 2010) ("In order to obtain appointed counsel, 'an indigent litigant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances in his or her case to justify the appointment of counsel.' The rare cases warranting appointment of counsel in the interests of justice typically involve nonfrivolous claims with factually and/or legally complex issues and a petitioner who is severely hampered in his ability to investigate the facts." (quoting Cookish v. Cunningham, 787 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1986))).
Howard is not entitled to the appointment of counsel to assist him. See United States v. Vasquez, No. CR 2:18-1282-S-1, 2020 WL 3000709, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 2, 2020) ("There is no right to counsel in § 3582 or other post-appellate criminal proceedings."). Moreover, Howard provides no basis for the court to conclude that the appointment of counsel would aid him in obtaining relief. Howard has failed to raise any potentially viable claims or any factually or legally complex issues that could arguably justify the appointment of post-conviction counsel. Thus, the court finds that the discretionary appointment of counsel is not warranted. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) (allowing appointment of counsel under certain circumstances when "the court determines that the interests of justice so require"). Accordingly, Howard's motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
III. Compassionate Release
On December 21, 2018, the President signed the First Step Act of 2018 into law. See First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. The Act, in part, amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), which gives the court discretion, in certain circumstances, to reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment:
The court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), or upon motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] 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, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 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); and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission . . . .18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). This provision is commonly referred to as "compassionate release."
Prior to the First Step Act, only the Director of the BOP could file a motion seeking compassionate release. See Tuozzo v. Shartle, No. 13-4897, 2014 WL 806450, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2014) (denying petitioner's motion for compassionate release because no motion for his release was filed by the BOP); Slate v. United States, No. 5:09-CV-00064, 2009 WL 1073640, at *3 (S.D.W.Va. Apr. 21, 2009) ("Absent a motion from the BOP, the Court lacks authority to grant compassionate release."). The First Step Act amended § 3582(c) by providing a defendant the means to appeal the BOP's decision not to file a motion for compassionate release on the defendant's behalf. United States v. Cantu, 423 F. Supp. 3d 345, 347 (S.D. Tex. 2019); United States v. Bell, No. 3:93-CR-302-M, 2019 WL 1531859, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2019). The plain language of the statute, however, makes it clear that the court may not grant a defendant's motion for compassionate release unless the defendant has complied with the administrative exhaustion requirement. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 833 (6th Cir. 2020) ("Even though [the] exhaustion requirement does not implicate [the court's] subject-matter jurisdiction, it remains a mandatory condition."); United States v. Raia, 954 F.3d 594, 597 (3d Cir. 2020) ("[T]he exhaustion requirement . . . presents a glaring roadblock foreclosing compassionate release."). Thus, before seeking relief from the court, a defendant must first submit a request to the warden of his facility to move for compassionate release on his behalf and then either exhaust his administrative remedies or wait for the lapse of 30 days after the warden received the request. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Harris, No. 20-1723, 2020 WL 4048690, at *1 (3d Cir. July 20, 2020); United States v. Springer, No. 20-5000, 2020 WL 3989451, at *3 (10th Cir. July 15, 2020) (defendant "was required to request that the BOP file a compassionate-release motion on his behalf to initiate his administrative remedies" (citing Raia, 954 F.3d at 595)); Alam, 960 F.3d at 833-34; United States v. Soliz, No. 2:16-190-3, 2020 WL 2500127, at *3 (S.D. Tex. May 14, 2020) ("§ 3582(c)(1)(A) does not provide this Court with the equitable authority to excuse [defendant's] failure to exhaust his administrative remedies or to waive the 30-day waiting period." (quoting United States v. Reeves, No. 18-00294, 2020 WL 1816496, at *2 (W.D. La. Apr. 9, 2020))).
There is uncertainty regarding the date Howard filed his request for compassionate relief with the warden of FCI Texarkana, Warden S. Salmonson. Howard claims he submitted his request on June 10, 2020. Attached to the Government's response is a handwritten request from Howard, dated July 29, 2020, seeking compassionate release. In addition, Warden Salmonson notes in his July 22, 2020, denial of Howard's request that the request was submitted on June 29, 2020. If Howard submitted his request on June 29, he would not have satisfied the 30-day waiting requirement at the time he filed his motion on July 17, 2020. On the other hand, if Howard submitted his request on June 10, then 30 days would have elapsed prior to his filing of the instant motion for compassionate release. In either case, nothing in his motion indicates that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist to release him from confinement.
Congress did not define "extraordinary and compelling." Rather, it elected to delegate its authority to the United States Sentencing Commission ("the Commission"). See 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) ("The Commission, in promulgating general policy statements regarding the sentencing modification provisions in section 3582(c)(1)(A) of title 18, shall describe what should be considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of specific examples."); see also U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 1B1.13 (U.S. SENTENCING COMM'N 2018) ("USSG"). In Application Note 1 to § 1B1.13 of the USSG, the Commission defined "extraordinary and compelling reasons" to include the following four categories of circumstances: (i) certain medical conditions of the defendant; (ii) the defendant is 65 years or older and meets other requirements; (iii) the defendant's family has specified needs for a caregiver; and (iv) other reasons in the defendant's case that establish an extraordinary and compelling reason. The court must also consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as applicable, and find that the sentence modification is consistent with the policy statements issued by the Commission. 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(A). The policy statement regarding compassionate release requires a determination that "the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2).
Section 3553(a) directs courts to consider: the nature and circumstances of the offense and the defendant's history and characteristics; the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; the need to deter criminal conduct; the need to protect the public; the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; the kinds of sentences and sentencing ranges established for defendants with similar characteristics under applicable USSG provisions and policy statements; any pertinent policy statement of the Commission in effect on the date of sentencing; the need to avoid unwarranted disparities among similar defendants; and the need to provide restitution to the victim. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
In the instant motion, Howard, age 37, contends that he is eligible for compassionate release due to his medical condition. Howard asserts that he suffers from hypertension and obesity and is vulnerable to contracting COVID-19. The USSG provides that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist regarding a defendant's medical condition when the defendant is "suffering from a terminal illness (i.e., a serious and advanced illness with an end of life trajectory)" or when a defendant is "suffering from a serious physical or medical condition," "suffering from a serious functional or cognitive impairment," or "experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health because of the aging process, that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A). Here, Howard contends that his history of hypertension and obesity are "underling [sic] deteriorating health conditions" that put him at risk if he were infected with COVID-19. Howard's Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR"), prepared in July 2019, make no mention of any health problems. The PSR states, "With regard to his physical health, the defendant reported that he is not under the care of a physician, nor is he receiving any prescription medication." Probation's investigation revealed that Howard is now receiving prescription medication to treat high blood pressure, but noted that his "records show his physical condition is stable with no extraordinary or compelling findings." Probation further reports that BOP records list his health status as "Care Level 1—Healthy." This medical summary does not meet the criteria listed above. While Howard may suffer from hypertension and obesity, neither of these medical conditions is terminal or substantially diminishes his ability to provide self-care. Hence, Howard has failed to establish that a qualifying medical condition exists that would constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce his sentence. Even if Howard had provided evidence that he was suffering from such a medical condition, "compassionate release is discretionary, not mandatory, and [may] be refused after weighing the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)." United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Where, as here, the defendant has an extensive criminal history, the district court has discretion to deny compassionate release after weighing the evidence. Id. at 693-94.
Howard's request for compassionate release potentially falls into the fourth, catch-all category of "other" extraordinary and compelling reasons, which specifically states that the Director of the BOP shall determine whether "there exists in the defendant's case an extraordinary and compelling reason other than, or in combination with, the reasons described in subdivisions (A) through (C)." Id. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(D). Although Subdivision D is reserved to the BOP Director, the Commission acknowledged, even before the passage of the First Step Act, that courts are in the position to determine whether extraordinary and compelling circumstances are present. United States v. Beck, 425 F. Supp. 3d 573, 583 (M.D.N.C. 2019) ("Read in light of the First Step Act, it is consistent with the previous policy statement and with the Commission guidance more generally for courts to exercise similar discretion as that previously reserved to the BOP Director in evaluating motions by defendants for compassionate release."); see Cantu, 423 F. Supp. 3d at 352 ("[T]he correct interpretation of § 3582(c)(1)(A) . . . is that when a defendant brings a motion for a sentence reduction under the amended provision, the Court can determine whether any extraordinary and compelling reasons other than those delineated in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A)-(C) warrant granting relief.").
In the case at bar, there is no indication that the BOP Director made a determination regarding the presence of extraordinary and compelling reasons with respect to Howard for any "other" reason. In exercising its discretion, the court finds that no extraordinary and compelling reasons exist in relation to Howard's situation. Howard expresses concern regarding the spread of COVID-19 amongst the prison population. As of August 21, 2020, the figures available at www.bop.gov list 1 inmate and 4 staff members at FCI Texarkana as "Confirmed Active Cases" of COVID-19, 2 staff members as recovered, and no deaths at the facility.
Although Howard expresses legitimate concerns regarding COVID-19, he does not establish that the BOP cannot manage the outbreak within his correctional facility or that the facility is specifically unable to treat Howard, if he were to contract the virus and develop COVID-19 symptoms, while incarcerated. See Raia, 954 F.3d at 597 ("[T]he mere existence of COVID-19 in society and the possibility that it may spread to a particular prison alone cannot independently justify compassionate release, especially considering BOP's statutory role, and its extensive and professional efforts to curtail the virus's spread."); United States v. Vasquez, No. CR 2:18-1282-S-1, 2020 WL 3000709, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 2, 2020) ("General concerns about the spread of COVID-19 or the mere fear of contracting an illness in prison are insufficient grounds to establish the extraordinary and compelling reasons necessary to reduce a sentence." (quoting United States v. Koons, No. 16-214-05, 2020 WL 1940570, at *5 (W.D. La. Apr. 21, 2020))); United States v. Clark, No. CR 17-85-SDD-RLB, 2020 WL 1557397, at *5 (M.D. La. Apr. 1, 2020) (finding the defendant had failed to present extraordinary and compelling reasons to modify his prison sentence because he "does not meet any of the criteria set forth by the statute" and he "cites no authority for the proposition that the fear of contracting a communicable disease warrants a sentence modification"). Furthermore, contracting the virus while incarcerated, even in conjunction with preexisting health conditions, is insufficient to establish exceptional and compelling circumstances warranting compassionate release. See United States v. Jackson, No. 3:16-CR-196-L-1, 2020 WL 4365633, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 30, 2020) (finding that defendant had failed to present extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release despite suffering from previous underlying health conditions and testing positive for COVID-19). Howard has failed to establish that "other" reasons exist that would constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce his sentence and warrant his release from imprisonment.
The court further finds that compassionate release is not warranted in light of the applicable factors set forth in § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (requiring courts to consider the § 3553(a) factors before granting compassionate release); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94. Howard's conviction stems from his participation in a drug trafficking conspiracy that involved the distribution of 45 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine or 4.5 kilograms or more of actual methamphetamine. The conspiracy began in January 2017 and continued until May 2018. His role in the conspiracy was to supply coconspirators with kilogram quantities of methamphetamine from various sources, which was imported from Mexico, for distribution to others in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas. Howard was apprehended after selling 114.2 grams of methamphetamine to a confidential informant for $1,400.00. He was on parole at the time of these events.
Howard has an extensive criminal history, including prior convictions for burglary of a habitation, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (2), criminal trespass, possession of marijuana, criminal mischief, evading arrest, failure to identify, assault, possession of a controlled substance (2), assault/family violence, resisting arrest, and false report to law enforcement. He also failed to comply with previous terms of probation and parole. Further, he has a long history of daily, poly-substance abuse. Moreover, Howard has served just 25 months of his 240-month sentence of imprisonment. In view of the circumstances surrounding Howard's offense of conviction and his extensive criminal history, the court cannot conclude that he would not pose a danger to any other person or to the community, if released from confinement.
Moreover, the BOP has instituted a comprehensive management approach that includes screening, testing, appropriate treatment, prevention, education, and infection control measures in response to COVID-19. In response to a directive from the United States Attorney General in March 2020, the BOP immediately began reviewing all inmates who have COVID-19 risk factors, as described by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for the purpose of determining which inmates are suitable for placement on home confinement. See United States v. Collins, No. CR 04-50170-04, 2020 WL 1929844, at *3 (W.D. La. Apr. 20, 2020). The BOP notes that inmates need not apply to be considered for home confinement, as this is being done automatically by case management staff. To date, the BOP has placed 7,626 inmates on home confinement. The March 2020 directive is limited to "eligible at-risk inmates who are non-violent and pose minimal likelihood of recidivism and who might be safer serving their sentences in home confinement rather than in BOP facilities." United States v. Castillo, No. CR 2:13-852-1, 2020 WL 3000799, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 2, 2020). The BOP has the exclusive authority to determine where a prisoner is housed; thus, the court is without authority to order home confinement. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); Castillo, 2020 WL 3000799, at *3; see United States v. Miller, No. 2:17-CR-015-D (02), 2020 WL 2514887, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2020) ("[N]either the CARES Act nor the First Step Act authorizes the court to release an inmate to home confinement.").
In his Memorandum to the BOP dated March 26, 2020, Attorney General Barr acknowledges that the Department of Justice ("DOJ") has an obligation to protect both BOP personnel and inmates. He also notes that the DOJ has the responsibility of protecting the public, meaning that "we cannot take any risk of transferring inmates to home confinement that will contribute to the spread of COVID-19 or put the public at risk in other ways." The Attorney General issued a subsequent Memorandum to the BOP on April 3, 2020, in which he emphasizes that police officers protecting the public face an increased risk from COVID-19 and cannot avoid exposure to the virus, with their numbers dwindling as officers who contract the virus become ill or die or need to recover or quarantine to avoid spreading the disease. Accordingly, he cautions:
The last thing our massively over-burdened police forces need right now is the indiscriminate release of thousands of prisoners onto the streets without any verification that those prisoners will follow the laws when they are released, that they have a safe place to go where they will not be mingling with their old criminal associates, and that they will not return to their old ways as soon as they walk through the prison gates.As the court noted in United States v. Preston, "[t]he best predictor of how [Defendant] will behave if he were to be released is how he behaved in the past, and his track record is a poor one." No. 3:18-CR-307-K, 2020 WL 1819888, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2020) (quoting United States v. Martin, No. PWG-19-140-13, 2020 WL 1274857, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2020)). Here, Howard's track record is similarly a poor one.
In short, Howard has failed to satisfy his burden of showing the necessary circumstances to warrant relief under the statutory framework to which the court must adhere. See United States v. Dodge, No. 17-323-01, 2020 WL 3668765, at *5 (W.D. La. July 6, 2020) (stressing that "the rampant spread of the coronavirus and the conditions of confinement in jail, alone, are not sufficient grounds to justify a finding of extraordinary and compelling circumstances"); Koons, 2020 WL 1940570, at *4-5 (same). As the court observed in Koons, rejecting the notion that it has "carte blanche" authority to release whomever it chooses, "[t]he Court cannot release every prisoner at risk of contracting COVID-19 because the Court would then be obligated to release every prisoner." Dodge, 2020 WL 3668765, at *6; Koons, 2020 WL 1940570, at *5.
IV. Conclusion
Consistent with the foregoing analysis, Howard's Motion for Compassionate Release (#1070) and Motion to Appoint Counsel (#1071) are DENIED.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 21st day of August, 2020.
/s/_________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE