Opinion
1:13-cr-151-SEB-TAB-01
09-14-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PASCAL SYLLA
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (COMPASSIONATE RELEASE)
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE United States District Court Southern District of Indiana
Upon motion of [x] the defendant □ the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), and after considering the applicable factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is:
□ DENIED.
[x] DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant filed a pro se motion that the Court construes as a Motion for Compassionate Release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Defendant's motion does not provide the Court with sufficient information to determine whether it should grant compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A). For example, Defendant argues that the COVID-19 pandemic presents an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), but he does not explain what, if any, medical conditions he has that increase his risk of experiencing severe symptoms if he contracts the virus. He also does not explain whether he has received or been offered the COVID-19 vaccine, which would reduce his risk of contracting COVID-19. Such information is pertinent to the Court's evaluation of whether Defendant has presented an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See United States v. Broadfield, __ F.4th __, No. 20-2906, 2021 WL 3076863, at *2 (7th Cir. July 21, 2021) ("[F]or the many prisoners who seek release based on the special risks created by COVID-19 for people living in close quarters, vaccines offer far more relief than a judicial order. A prisoner who can show that he is unable to AO 248 (Rev. S.D. Ind. 09/20) ORDER ON MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) receive or benefit from a vaccine may still turn to this statute, but, for the vast majority of prisoners, the availability of a vaccine makes it impossible to conclude that the risk of COVID-19 is an 'extraordinary and compelling' reason for immediate release .... The federal judiciary need not accept a prisoner's self-diagnosed skepticism about the COVID-19 vaccines as an adequate explanation for remaining unvaccinated, when the responsible agencies all deem vaccination safe and effective.").
The Court also notes that Defendant argues that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant his release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) because he would receive a shorter sentence for his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924 if sentenced today. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has specifically held that the change to § 924 cannot be an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A), whether alone or in combination with other proffered reasons. See United States v. Thacker, F.4th, No. 20-2943, 2021 WL 2979530, at *6 (7th Cir. July 15, 2021). Thus, the Court cannot consider the disparity between the sentence Defendant received and the sentence he might receive if sentenced today when deciding whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant relief. Accordingly, Defendant's motion, dkt. [87], is denied without prejudice. If Defendant wishes to renew his motion, he may do so by completing and returning the attached form motion. (Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Compassionate Release) (Pro Se Prisoner)). Among other things, the form requires Defendant to explain whether he has received or been offered the COVID-19 vaccine.
IT IS SO ORDERED.