Opinion
CASE NO. 13-80009-CR-ALTONAGA
08-13-2020
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Christopher SIEGERT, Defendant.
Brandy Brentari Galler, United States Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff. Lori E. Barrist, Federal Public Defender's Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant.
Brandy Brentari Galler, United States Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff.
Lori E. Barrist, Federal Public Defender's Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant.
ORDER
CECILIA M. ALTONAGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant, Christopher Siegert's Motion for Compassionate Release [ECF No. 48], filed on August 3, 2020. The Motion is accompanied by copies of Defendant's sealed medical records. (See [ECF No. 48-2]). The Government filed its Response to Defendant's Motion [ECF No. 51] on August 11, 2020. Defendant filed a Reply [ECF No. 52] on August 11, 2020. The Court has carefully reviewed the parties’ written submissions, the record, and applicable law. For the reasons explained below, the Motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 3, 2013, the grand jury returned an Indictment [ECF No. 6], charging Defendant with enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2422(b). On February 6, 2013 (see Min. Entry [ECF No. 22]), the now 37-year-old Defendant entered a plea of guilty (see Plea Agreement [ECF No. 20] 1). At the time of sentencing, Defendant's advisory Guidelines’ imprisonment range was 70 to 87 months, but he was subject to a statutorily required minimum sentence of 120 months. (See Presentence Investigation Report ("PSI") [ECF No. 27] 14). On March 22, 2013, the court sentenced Defendant to 120 months’ imprisonment, followed by supervised release for a term of life, with a number of reporting and recordkeeping requirements. (See J. [ECF No. 33] 2–4).
The undersigned did not sentence Defendant but has carefully reviewed his PSI. Defendant was raised in middle socioeconomic conditions and experienced bullying outside the home. (See PSI 10). At the time of his PSI, Defendant was 29 years old, had a high school diploma, weighed 340 pounds, suffered from high blood pressure and Bell's palsy, and still lived in his parents’ rural home in Palm Beach County. (See id. 10–11). From 2006 to 2012, he worked full time as a technical director for CBS-12. (See id. 12). His offense conduct involved the exchange of cell phone text messages and communications via a social networking application with an undercover agent ("UC") posing as a 15-year old tenth grader; Defendant believed the UC was having the same troubles dealing with his sexuality that Defendant had and wanted to befriend and help the UC. (See id. 7).
Defendant has served 89 percent of his sentence and is scheduled to be released in 11 months, or on June 27, 2021. (See Mot. 1). He suffers from obesity, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, phlebitis, and thrombophlebitis ; he is taking two medications for high blood pressure and one for cholesterol. (See id. 1–3; see also Medical Rs.). These medical conditions place him at increased risk of developing life-threatening complications should he contract COVID-19. (See id. ; see also id. 10–11).
Defendant submitted a request for compassionate release to the warden at FCI Jessup, where he resides, on June 22, 2020 and as of the filing of the Motion, had not received a response. (See id. 1, 8; see also [ECF No. 48-1]). FCI Jessup reports one death, 20 current infections, and 255 "recovered" infections for inmates and staff; these numbers establish a high 68 percent positivity infection rate. (See Mot. 8 (quotation marks omitted)). Defendant states his release does not pose a danger to the community (see id. 2); in contrast, COVID-19 poses an extreme risk to Defendant due to his health conditions and the difficulties in controlling the spread of the virus in a correctional institution (see id. 6). Defendant's medical needs are better addressed at his parents’ home, where he can practice social distancing; and if he gets sick, he can access proper medical care paid for by his father, who is employed as an engineer. (See id. 7; 12).
The Government opposes compassionate release. (See generally Resp.). It states while Defendant does present "extraordinary and compelling reasons" to warrant release, "his conviction for a sex offense involving a minor continues to present a public safety threat." (Id. 2 (bold and capitalized text removed)). The Government's three-page opposition fails to persuade. Defendant's position is well-taken.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Statutory Framework for Compassionate Release
"The authority of a district court to modify an imprisonment sentence is narrowly limited by statute." United States v. Phillips , 597 F.3d 1190, 1194–95 (11th Cir. 2010). The limited circumstances where a court may modify a term of imprisonment are: (1) where the BOP files a motion and either extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a reduction or the defendant is at least 70 years old and meets other requirements; (2) where another statute or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 expressly permits a sentence modification; or (3) where a defendant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that was subsequently lowered by the Sentencing Commission and other requirements are satisfied. See id. at 1195 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) ). "The First Step Act of 2018's amendment of [ section] 3582(c)(1)(A) revised one such exception." United States v. Brown , No. 3:13-cr-13, 2020 WL 3511584, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. June 29, 2020) (alteration added; citation omitted).
The procedural mechanism Defendant employs in his request for a sentence reduction is section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Under section 3582(c)(1)(A), the Court may, under certain circumstances, reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment if, after considering the factors under 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a), it finds "extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction[ ]" and that "such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission[.]" 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (alterations added). The Sentencing Commission's relevant policy statements are contained in U.S.S.G. section 1B1.13 ; Application Note 1 to section 1B1.13 elaborates upon the meaning of "extraordinary and compelling reasons" under section 3582(c)(1)(A). Section 1B1.13 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines provides a three-factor test for analyzing a request for sentence reduction: after considering the section 3553(a) factors as applicable, a court may reduce a defendant's sentence if it determines (1) "[e]xtraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction[ ]"; (2) "[t]he defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community as provided in 18 U.S.C. [section] 3142(g) [ ]"; and (3) "[t]he reduction is consistent with this policy statement." U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (alterations added).
The Application Note for section 1B1.13 describes four categories of circumstances that may present "extraordinary and compelling reasons":
(A) Medical Condition of the Defendant.
(i) The defendant is suffering from a terminal illness.... Examples include metastatic solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced dementia.
(ii) The defendant is —
(I) suffering from a serious physical or medical condition,
(II) suffering from a serious functional or cognitive impairment, or
(III) 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.
(B) Age of the Defendant. The defendant (i) is at least 65 years old; (ii) is experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because of the aging process; and (iii) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less.
(C) Family Circumstances.
(i) The death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant's minor child or minor children.
(ii) The incapacitation of the defendant's spouse or registered partner when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for the spouse or registered partner.
(D) Other Reasons. As determined by the Director of the [BOP], 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).
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, cmt. n.1 (alterations added; bold omitted).
The Court may only reach the Sentencing Commission's policy considerations and reduce a defendant's term of imprisonment for extraordinary and compelling reasons "upon motion of the Director of the [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 ... whichever is earlier[.]" 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (alterations added). Defendant bears the burden of showing he is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Green , 764 F.3d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
B. Defendant is Entitled to Compassionate Release
1. Defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies.
It is undisputed Defendant submitted his request for compassionate release to the warden, and the Government states the warden denied that request on August 11, 2020. (See [ECF No. 51-1]). Because Defendant has exhausted his administrative remedies at the Bureau of Prisons, the Court proceeds to address directly the issues briefed by the parties on their merits.
2. Defendant shows "extraordinary and compelling reasons" under section 3582(c)(1)(A).
Defendant is requesting release under the "extraordinary and compelling reasons" prong of 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(1)(A). (See Mot. 8–13). The information disclosed in the PSI and in Defendant's current medical records amply supports the conclusion Defendant has medical conditions rising to the level of a major impairment supporting compassionate release. Tellingly, the Government acknowledges Defendant suffers from several medical conditions that place him at increased risk should he contract COVID-19 at FCI Jessup.
3. The 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a) factors favor compassionate release.
Finally, "compassionate release is discretionary, not mandatory, and c[an] be refused after weighing the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. [section] 3553(a)." United States v. Chambliss , 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) (alterations added). Indeed, section 3582 requires that a court contemplating a sentence reduction consider "the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable[.]" 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (alteration added).
The Government insists releasing Defendant eleven months early will endanger the community, without explaining exactly how the community will be safeguarded from the Defendant in eleven months’ time. In other words, if Defendant is a danger to the community now, after having served 91 months’ imprisonment, it is unclear why or how the community will be any safer by having Defendant serve an additional 11 months. (See Mot. 2). Will the Bureau of Prisons offer Defendant some targeted and particularized counseling in the next 11 months that he has not heretofore received and that will modify behavior? Will U.S. Probation be better prepared to supervise Defendant in 11 months’ time rather than today?
As Defendant states in his Reply, being released to his parents’ home under supervision safeguards the community. (See Reply 1). He will not have access to the Internet, he will have little opportunity to go anywhere during this pandemic, his activities will be monitored by a probation officer, and his supportive family will participate in his rehabilitation and compliance with all requirements of supervision. (See id. 1–2). Defendant offers a viable release plan — one that would be in place in eleven months in any event.
Modifying Defendant's sentence to time served — given the length of time Defendant has served already — will in no way lessen respect for the law or endanger the goals of general and specific deterrence. Granting Defendant a compassionate release is consistent with the section 3553(a) factors: it accounts for the seriousness of the crime he committed, it serves to promote respect for the law, and it provides adequate general and specific deterrence; while taking into account Defendant's history and particular health conditions.
Under U.S.S.G. section 1B1.13, the Court cannot grant the Motion unless it determines Defendant is not a danger to the community. The Court is satisfied Defendant has been rehabilitated in the many years that he has been incarcerated for this, his first offense. In short, consideration of the section 3553(a) factors favors this slight reduction in Defendant's sentence.
III. CONCLUSION
Being fully advised, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant, Defendant, Christopher Siegert's Motion for Compassionate Release [ECF No. 48] is GRANTED . Defendant shall be released forthwith to commence his lifetime of supervised release.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 13th day of August, 2020.