Opinion
CR 18-00290 WHA
10-26-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MIGUEL ANGEL VALENCIA-GARCIA, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
INTRODUCTION
In this motion for compassionate release, in-custody defendant moves pro se for release due to medical hardship, family circumstance, and alleged abuse while incarcerated. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is DENIED.
STATEMENT
In 2017 and 2018, defendant conspired to distribute methamphetamine and heroin in our district and beyond. In January 2018, he arranged a 10-kilogram methamphetamine pickup from a courier in Los Angeles for distribution in the Bay Area (Dkt. No. 109 at 4). That same month, he arranged for the sale of 350 grams of black tar heroin (ibid.). In April 2018, defendant traveled to Southern California to arrange the import of a kilogram of what he believed to be “China white” heroin from Tijuana, Mexico (ibid.). Defendant personally drove the product back to the Bay for sale. Testing after seizure revealed it to be noscapine, a poppy byproduct (ibid).
In March 2019, defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (Count One), conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin (Count Two), and attempt to posses with the intent to distribute heroin (Count Seven) (Dkt. No. 109 at 1-2). Defendant's guideline sentence was 135 - 168 months (Dkt. No. 210 at 23). He was sentenced to 135 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release pursuant to a “C” plea (a plea stipulated to by defendant as a way of avoiding a higher sentence).
At the time of sentencing, defendant had three prior drug convictions. In 1996, he was sentenced to three years for the transportation or sale of narcotics in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11352, and possession of ephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11383(c) (Dkt. No. 210 at 11-12). In 2009, he was sentenced for conspiracy to sell narcotics in violation of California Penal Code Section 182(a)(1) (10 years), and for using a false compartment to conceal a controlled substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11366.8(a) (10 years), to run consecutively (id. at 12-13). He served roughly three years of that sentence in CDCR custody. In 2019, defendant was sentenced to three years for using a false compartment to conceal a controlled substance in violation of California Penal Code Section 1366.8(a) and for transporting a controlled substance in violation of California Health and Safety Code Section 11352(a) (id. at 14-15).
ANALYSIS
On the motion of a defendant, the sentencing court may reduce a term of imprisonment if:
after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable, the court determines that
- (1)(A) Extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the
reduction;
[ . . . ]
(2) The defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); and
(3) The reduction is consistent with this policy statement.U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(a). A court must make three findings: (1) that a reduction is compatible with the Section 3553 factors, (2) that an “extraordinary and compelling reason” (defined in Section 1B1.13) justifies reduction, and (3) that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person in the community. A successful motion must meet each mark; defendant falls short of all three.
1. Defendant has not made out an extraordinary and compelling reason.
Defendant's motion does not present extraordinary and compelling reasons within the meaning of Section 1B1.13.
First, the conditions of defendant's confinement do not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason. Defendant states that the COVID-19 counter-measures taken by FCI Victorville, namely his three-week isolation after he caught COVID and the general practice of administrative lockdowns, constitute “torture,” and have led to “devastating, brutal, torturous, and inhumane” consequences (Dkt. No. 534 at 3-4). “The allegedly ‘harsh' conditions of confinement created by the coronavirus pandemic apply to all inmates and do not in themselves warrant special treatment for [defendant].” United States v. Hernandez, No. 5:13-CR-00200, 2022 WL 910091, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2022) (Judge Joseph Jeeson); United States v. Johnson, No. 1:18-CR-00907-PAC-2, 2021 WL 4120536, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2021) (Judge Paul Crotty) (“[A]lthough the pandemic has made prison conditions harsher than usual, those are circumstances that all inmates have had to endure.”).
Second, defendant's medical conditions do not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason. Section 1B1.13 provides that the medical condition of a defendant is an extraordinary and compelling reason if:
(A) 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.
(B) 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.
(C) The defendant is suffering from a medical condition that requires long-term or specialized medical care that is not being provided and without which the defendant is at risk of serious deterioration in health or death.U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Defendant does not suffer from a “terminal illness” comparable to endstage organ disease or solid-tumor cancer, has not experienced seriously diminishment of his ability to provide self-care, and does not require specialized care beyond the faculties of the BOP.
Defendant argues that the conditions of his confinement have caused him to suffer from “irreversible progeria consequences,” which have “aged [him] 20 years going from a 65-year-old man to an 85-year-old geriatric” (Dkt. Nos. 540, 541). He points to long-term consequences of a prior COVID-19 infection, including “memory and attention loss and disorientation,” a “painful enlarged prostate and bladder . . . caused by a lower urinary tract disorder,” “Type 1 and Type 2 high blood pressure attacks,” “perpetual hypertension and hyperlipidemia,” a “perpetual cold or never-ending flu,” an undiagnosed “severe . . . neurological disorder,” “death shakes,” and other conditions, all of which have “turned [him] into a vegetable” (Dkt. No. 536 at 3-5).
Defendant's medical records do not support his characterization of his physical condition. As an initial matter, defendant does not suffer from progeria. Progeria is “[a] condition of precocious aging with onset at birth or early childhood.” Progeria, STEDMAN'S MEDICAL DICTIONARY (28th ed. 2014) (emphasis added). Progeria is a genetic condition; there is no cure. Symptoms appear within the first year of life, and afflicted children do not live past 20 years old. Progeria, MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/progeria/symptoms-causes/syc-20356038 (last visited September 12, 2024).
BOP medical records state that defendant had previously suffered from “chronic sinusitis,” “otitis media” (infection of the middle ear), and an “unspecified disease of [the] inner ear” (Dkt. No. 536 at 11). Each of those conditions were “resolved” by November 2023 (ibid).
Defendant's ongoing conditions include “essential (primary) hypertension” (high blood pressure) and “hyperlipidemia” (high cholesterol) (id. at 12). Defendant is afforded regular access to the BOP's chronic care clinic, medications, and counseling regarding lifestyle changes that may help improve those conditions, and records reflect that both are being adequately treated in custody. A November 2023 medical report noted that defendant's hypertension is “well controlled on current meds,” and requires “routine labs and monitoring.” During that medical appointment, defendant reported “compliance and tolerability with prescribed medications,” and “denie[d] side effects.” An April 2024 Chronic Care Clinic report reaffirmed that defendant's hyperlipidemia was “well controlled,” and that his triglycerides had reduced significantly with diet and lifestyle changes (Dkt. No. 536 at 14). His blood pressure was likewise “well controlled” (ibid.).
Defendant also suffers from lower back pain (id. at 12). Defendant was prescribed ibuprofen to help with the pain, an X-ray of his lumbar spine was performed, and he was given a pillow and “mattress overlay,” after which he “noted improvement in back pain overnight” (id. at 14). He receives regular counseling concerning physical exercises and lifestyle changes that may alleviate his localized lower back pain, in addition to written materials detailing helpful exercise regiments. Finally, it is true that defendant has an enlarged prostate with lower urinary tract symptoms, but that, too, is being addressed via regular medical appointments and prescription medicine (id. at 13, 26).
Defendant's declaration states that he has “cold sweats, fever, chills, and unexplainable and torturing body pains” (Dkt. No. 536 at 4). BOP medical records, meanwhile, indicate that defendant has consistently reported a lack of “constitutional symptoms,” including “No: chills, easily tired, fatigue, fever” (id. at 13). Moreover, he rated his back pain as “4/10 in the morning and report[ed] his pain improves as he gets up and moves around throughout the day” (id. at 14). During another check-up, he “reporte[ed] his pain is localized to his lower back,” and rated the pain a “5” (id. at 28).
Defendant's declaration states that he “sometimes involuntarily shake[s] while sleeping,” and that a “severe and embarrassing neurological disorder” causes him to “rock back and forth or sideways” “involuntarily” (Dkt. No. 536 at 4). BOP medical records, meanwhile, state that defendant “denie[d] seizures or involuntary movement” (id. at 11).
Defendant notes in his declaration that “before I was infected with COVID-19 I was not allergic to anything and now I seem to be allergic to everything” (Dkt. No. 536 at 4). BOP medical records, meanwhile, state that his “allergies list [was] reviewed/updated for the presence or absence of allergies, sensitivities, and other reactions to drugs, materials, food and environmental factors” in April 2024, and that defendant had “no known allergies” (id. at 14).
Defendant's motion and supporting declaration overstate the severity of his condition as recorded in BOP medical records. Those ailments that defendant does in fact suffer from fall far short of the bar for extraordinary and compelling reasons. The BOP is well equipped to address defendant's medical needs, and the record suggests that BOP Health Services have dedicated significant time and resources to doing so, with positive results.
Third, defendant's family circumstances do not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason. Section 1B1.13 provides that “the death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant's minor child or the defendant's child who is 18 years of age or older and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability or a medical condition” may constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason. Sometime before defendant's incarceration, his now twenty-year-old son Carlos was diagnosed with microcephaly. Carlos is unable to care for himself and requires constant assistance. Carlos's mother stated in a declaration that “[i]n the past I relied on my other sons and daughters to help me care for [Carlos], or on friends and neighbors. But my sons and daughters are at the age of leaving home and my neighbors cannot help me care for him for free” (Dkt. No. 535 at 2).
Defendant provides no medical documentation establishing that his son is incapable of self-care beyond the declaration of Carlos's mother (Dkt. No. 535 at 2) (“For many years Carlos has been diagnosed with untreatable and irreversible microcephaly with reduced life expectancy and a poor brain function prognosis”). Moreover, defendant falls short of the necessary “robust evidentiary showing that [he] is the only available caregiver.” United States v. Bragg, No. 12CR3617-CAB, 2021 WL 662269, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2021) (Judge Cathy Bencivengo). Carlos's mother states that she is unavailable at times because she must work, and that her other children are “leaving home” (Dkt. No. Decl. at 2). Defendant does not otherwise establish that other caretakers are unavailable, only that prior caregivers may now be unwilling. As a general matter, other family members' unwillingness to continue care does not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason. United States v. Milchin, 2024 WL 2831809, at *2 (E.D. Pa. June 4, 2024) (Judge Gerald Pappert); United States v. Conley, 2024 WL 490337 (W.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2024) (Judge James Jones). Carlos's siblings need not live with Carlos in order to help as caretakers, and defendant's motion does not explain why Carlos's siblings cannot continue to pitch in when his mom is at work.
In sum, defendant has not established an extraordinary and compelling reason as defined by Section 1B1.13.
2. Defendant has not shown that he is not a danger to the community.
Defendant argues that he presents a minimal risk of recidivism because of the generally low recidivism rate for offenders 65 years old and older (16%, according to defendant), and because he will be deported to Mexico upon release.
First, defendant does not provide an accessible source for the recidivism numbers cited in his motion. The most recent Sentencing Commission literature available to the Court states that offenders aged 60-64 at the time of release had a rearrest rate of 14.2%, while offenders aged 65-69 had a rearrest rate of 12.5%. Older Offenders in the Federal System, UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION (July 2022). Defendant has already beat the odds once: he was 60 years old when he arranged a ten-kilogram methamphetamine pickup and then attempted to import a kilogram of “China White” heroin from Tijuana to the Bay. His age has not previously deterred defendant, and it is unlikely to do so should he be released.
Moreover, defendant was not an unsophisticated hand-to-hand street dealer. He worked to import large quantities of narcotics from Mexico into the Bay. His deportation is likely to amplify, not mitigate, the risk that defendant poses. He will be closer to the source of his product and beyond the reach of justice.
3. Defendant has not shown that a reduction in his sentence is compatible with the Section 3553(A) factors.
Defendant's “C” plea bargained for a 135-month sentence, at the bottom of the 135 - 168 month guideline range. Defendant's sentence is the minimum sentence necessary to comply with the sentencing factors set forth in Section 3553(A).
The conduct underlying defendant's current sentence included a ten-kilogram methamphetamine pickup, an attempt to import a kilogram of “China white” heroin from Tijuana, and the sale of 350 grams of black tar heroin. Defendant has three prior felony drug convictions, to boot. The current sentence is necessary to reflect the seriousness of the instant offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment. It is likewise necessary to achieve both specific and general deterrence, in light of defendant's repeated narcotics convictions and the large volume of drugs at issue. Finally, the present sentence is necessary to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant in light of the nature of defendant's offenses and his record of recidivism.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion for compassionate release is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.