Opinion
Case No. 16-20008-07-DDC
11-30-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LUIS VILLA-VALENCIA (07), Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendant Luis Villa-Valencia filed an Unopposed Motion to Reduce Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (Doc. 475). Before the court can rule Mr. Villa-Valencia's motion, it must determine whether it has jurisdiction to decide the motion. Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) provides that the court can reduce Mr. Villa-Valencia's sentence "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[.]" (emphasis added). Here, Mr. Villa-Valencia contends he "has satisfied the exhaustion requirement because more than 30 days have passed since the warden received the request for compassionate release." Id. at 12. But, Mr. Villa-Valencia doesn't assert whether the warden responded within those 30 days. See United States v. McIntosh, No. 11-20085-01-KHV, 2020 WL 5747921, at *2 (D. Kan. Sept. 25, 2020), reconsideration denied, 2020 WL 6270918 (D. Kan. Oct. 26, 2020) ("[I]f the warden responds to a request within 30 days, defendant must fully exhaust available administrative appeals before filing a motion in district court.").
The court thus directs Mr. Villa-Valencia to supplement his Unopposed Motion to Reduce Sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) with the required information about his exhaustive attempts within 10 days of the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of November, 2020, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge