Opinion
17-CR-6120L
07-30-2020
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Kurt REDANCE, Defendant.
Katelyn M. Hartford, United States Attorney's Office, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff. Jeffrey L. Ciccone, Federal Public Defender, Rochester, NY, for Defendant.
Katelyn M. Hartford, United States Attorney's Office, Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff.
Jeffrey L. Ciccone, Federal Public Defender, Rochester, NY, for Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
DAVID G. LARIMER, United States District Judge
Defendant Kurt Redance ("Redance") filed a pro se motion (Dkt. #83) seeking release from custody pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The basis for the motion is the public health crises involving the COVID-19 virus. The Government filed its Response (Dkt. #88) opposing the motion on several grounds. In addition, the Probation Department for the Western District of New York filed a Report (Dkt. #86) concerning Redance's status at FCI Allenwood Low.
In September 2017, Redance pleaded guilty to two charges, possession with intent to distribute 50 grams of methamphetamine and also possession of methamphetamine on a premises where a minor is present. In the Plea Agreement, Redance admitted that he obtained over 500 grams of pure methamphetamine for distribution. On January 17, 2019, the Court sentenced Redance principally to a term of 48 months on the conspiracy charge, plus 12 months consecutive for the possession where a child is present, for an aggregate sentence of 60 months imprisonment. Redance has served less than half of that sentence and is scheduled for release in November 2021.
There are several reasons why Redance's motion is denied. First, it appears clear that Redance has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. An inmate seeking release under this statute must establish that he has exhausted administrative remedies by seeking release from the Warden or Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). According to the Government's Response, Redance has not made the administrative request. Although Redance may have requested a transfer to home confinement, he has failed to exhaust his remedies by seeking relief pursuant to Section 3582. So on that basis, the motion is denied.
But, on the merits, I do not believe that Redance is entitled to relief. It is clear that an inmate seeking release has the heavy burden of establishing extraordinary and compelling reasons to change and modify the sentence originally imposed. In this case, the sentence was based on significant drug trafficking with others involving methamphetamine. A defendant seeking relief must show more than the fact that there is a pandemic and there is some possibility that he might contract the disease. That does not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason to change the sentence. Obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic is serious but its existence is not an automatic vehicle for release from the sentence imposed by the Court.
The focus should be on the situation at the inmate's place of confinement and especially concerning his health. The focus should be on the individual circumstances involving the inmate that warrant relief.
In this case, Redance is 30 years old and is, therefore, not in one of the categories mentioned by the Center for Disease Control ("CDC") involving heightened risk. Redance is not vulnerable because of age. It also appears that Redance is in good health based on the BOP medical records and the fact that he has been designated at the lowest medical care level, Level I. There is no indication that he has been designated as a person seriously at risk. Neither Redance's motion nor the Revised Presentence Report (Dkt. #77) indicate any serious medical issues or conditions that may make Redance particularly susceptible to contracting the virus. In fact, the Revised Presentence Report (Dkt. #77 at ¶95) indicated that Redance reported that he was "in good physical health," that he was not under the care of any physician and that he was not taking medication.
Also, according to the Government's Response, the Allenwood facility at this point has no COVID-19 cases involving either staff or inmates. It is a relatively small facility and staff there appear to be taking appropriate steps to prevent spread of the virus. Those steps are outlined in the Government's Response.
I have also considered the general sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and they weigh against release as well. Redance's drug activity was significant involving significant quantities of drugs over a lengthy period of time. Redance was facing a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence but did qualify for the so-called safety valve treatment and therefore received the lesser sentence referenced above.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, defendant Kurt Redance's motion (Dkt. #83) for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) is in all respects DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.