Opinion
Case No. 4:16-cr-00048-BLW
01-06-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES ROBERT JENNINGS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is James Jennings' letter requesting compassionate release to home confinement. Dkt. 83. The Court construes the letter as a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). The Government opposes the motion. Dkt. 84. For the reasons that follow the Court will deny the motion.
BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2017, Jennings was sentenced to 27 months incarceration and five years supervised release for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance near a public school. Jennings began his term of supervision on September 20, 2018. On September 30, 2020, the Court revoked Jennings supervised release and sentenced him to 8 months incarceration. Dkt. 79, 82.
ANALYSIS
Jennings seeks compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A). To grant compassionate release, a district court must, as a threshold matter, determine whether a defendant has exhausted his or her administrative remedies. Id. The statute provides, in relevant part, that a court
[...] 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, may reduce the term of imprisonment[...]18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
If the exhaustion requirement is met, the court must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id. Then the Court may grant compassionate release only if the defendant shows that "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction." and the reduction is "consistent with applicable policy statements" issued by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Id.; United States v. Rodriguez, 424 F. Supp. 3d 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2019). The defendant bears the burden of establishing that compelling and extraordinary reasons exist to justify compassionate release. See United States v. Greenhut, 2020 WL 509385, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2020) (citing United States v. Sprague, 135 F.3d 1301, 1306-07 (9th Cir. 1998)).
Jennings is not yet in BOP custody and has not made a request for compassionate release to BOP. See Dkt. 84. Therefore Jennings has not exhausted his remedies under § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the statute does not permit the Court to consider his motion. Further, Jennings has not addressed the § 3553(a) factors, nor provided any extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting his release. Therefore, the Court will deny his motion without prejudice. Jennings may file a new motion after he enters BOP custody and exhausts his remedies under § 3582(c)(1)(A).
To the extent Jennings seeks home confinement, the Court agrees with the Government that BOP has sole authority and discretion to allow a defendant to serve part of his sentence in home confinement. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b), 3624(c). --------
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that James Jennings Motion for Compassionate Release (Dkt. 83) is DENIED without prejudice.
DATED: January 6, 2021
/s/_________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge