Opinion
2:17-cr-00049
02-24-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DEREK WILLIAMS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Mark R. Hornak, Chief United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2021, the Court hereby issues the following Order: The Defendant filed a pro se Motion for Reconsideration of his Motion for Compassionate Release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) at ECF Nos. 130 and 132. For the reasons below, the Motions are DENIED without prejudice, subject to reassertion should circumstances warrant.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2017, a federal Grand Jury returned a two (2) count Indictment against Mr. Williams, charging him with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, as well as attempt to possess with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. (ECF No. 16.) Mr. Williams pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge on October 23, 2017, and was sentenced to a term of 144 months in custody, followed by a term of supervised release of five (5) years. (ECF Nos. 69, 100.) Mr. Williams now resides at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Danbury, Connecticut. As of the date of this Order, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) lists Mr. Williams's release date as May 10, 2027.
Last summer, Mr. Williams moved for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) due to underlying health conditions and the substantial presence of COVID-19 at FCI Danbury. (ECF No. 122, at 1; see also ECF No. 115.) The Court found that Mr. Williams's Motion was properly before it and that his medical conditions rose to an “extraordinary and compelling” level when considered in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, but that Mr. Williams remained a risk to the community. (ECF No. 129.) The Court thus concluded that compassionate release was inappropriate at that time. (Id.) Based on the record before the Court, the Court found that Mr. Williams was afflicted with two (2) conditions-obesity and hypertension-that place him at higher risk of severe illness should he contract the COVID-19 virus. (See ECF No. 129; ECF No. 123, at 1-2.) But the Court determined that at least two (2) of the § 3553(a) factors substantially weighed against Mr. Williams's release: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; and (2) the need for the original sentence to deter future criminal conduct and to protect the public from further crimes by the defendant. (ECF No. 129, at 10.) The Court also considered Mr. Williams's proposed release plan to reside with and assist his mother who is battling cancer. (Id. at 12.) In the Court's view, the proposed release plan compounded the Court's concerns about the risk of safety to the community because the plan gave the Court little assurances that Mr. Williams would be looked after in a way that would deter or prevent him from committing future criminal offenses. (Id.)
On February 1, 2021, Mr. Williams filed a pro se Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 130.) A few days later, Mr. Williams filed another pro se Motion that is substantially similar to the first. (ECF No. 132.) Both Motions argue that Mr. Williams's health conditions and his need to care for his mother are “extraordinary and compelling” reasons warranting his release. (ECF No. 130, at 4-5; ECF No. 132, at 5-6.) Mr. Williams also complains about a spike in COVID-19 cases and an outbreak of scabies cases at FCI Danbury. (ECF No. 132, at 3.) Mr. Williams argues that he is not a danger to the safety of the community, stressing his rehabilitative efforts while incarcerated and his changed outlook on life given his mother's cancer and his current inability to care for her. (ECF No. 130, at 5-6; ECF No. 132, at 6.) He also references programming and other mechanisms that could reduce the time left on his sentence. (ECF No. 132, at 2-3.) The Government opposed Mr. Williams's Motions. (ECF No. 134.) Counsel for the United States contends that Mr. Williams's Motions do not meet the standard for reconsideration. (Id. at 2.) The matter is ripe for disposition.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking reconsideration must show at least one (1) of the following: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court [dismissed the motion]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.” Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999). “In the interest of finality at the district court level, motions for reconsideration should be granted sparingly; litigants are not free to retry issues the court already decided.” Frederick Banks v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., et al., Nos. 16-61, 16-79, 16-80, 2016 WL 693135, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2016).
III. DISCUSSION
Mr. Williams's Motions for Reconsideration are mainly limited to information and arguments already presented to the Court when it reviewed Mr. Williams's initial motion for release. At that time, the Court considered Mr. Williams's health conditions and the nature of COVID-19 at FCI Danbury. Though the Motions for Reconsideration mention a recent spike in COVID-19 cases, the public information listed on the BOP website shows that as of February 23, 2021, one (1) inmate and one (1) staff at FCI Danbury are currently “positive” for COVID-19. See COVID - 19 Coronavirus, Federal Bureau of Prisons (last updated February 23, 2021), https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/. As to the status of his own health, Mr. Williams does not present any new information. The only new medical concern that Mr. Williams offers is reference to a scabies outbreak at FCI Danbury. (ECF No. 132, at 3.) Though this is not supported by an evidentiary record of any sort, the Court notes that a defendant in at least one other case has recently referred to scabies at the Danbury facility. See United States v. Pena, 18637-1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2020). Even so, this is not enough to warrant reconsideration of Mr. Williams's motion for compassionate release. Nothing before the Court indicates that the BOP cannot handle the medical concerns within Danbury or shows how such conditions would have an individualized effect on Mr. Williams. Moreover, the Court previously concluded that Mr. Williams's health conditions rose to an “extraordinary and compelling” level. If anything, Mr. Williams's newest argument would only add to the analysis of a point that Mr. Williams already prevailed on, and in the Court's judgment, these newer items are not game changers in the overall picture of what is before the Court.
Mr. Williams's other arguments for reconsideration fare no better. Mr. Williams asserts that he needs to care for his mother who is battling cancer. But the Court already considered this argument and determined it did not justify his release, and in some ways actually cut against him. (ECF No. 129, at 12.) Likewise, Mr. Williams discusses his rehabilitative efforts in prison, but the Court previously acknowledged such efforts and still concluded that early release was not justified. (Id. at 11.) Finally, Mr. Williams argues that the amount of time left on his in-custody sentence is lower than the Court articulated in its Order denying his initial motion, when accounting for good time and the completion of programming. (ECF No. 132, at 2-3.) But, as the Government notes, the full extent of any reduction remains hypothetical. (See ECF No. 134, at 2-3.) And even if his sentence is reduced for various reasons, Mr. Williams still has a substantial amount of time left on his sentence. The Court also notes that the potential future reduction of Mr. Williams's sentence existed when the Court reached its decision on the initial motion.
In sum, nothing of significance is new before the Court. Considering that there has been no change in Mr. Williams's medical status and that the publicly available data on COVID-19 in FCI Danbury does not reflect an uncontrolled outbreak, the Court finds no basis for reconsideration at this time and concludes that reconsideration is not warranted by the record.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court has considered the filings on the docket and reviewed the publicly available information about the current nature of the COVID-19 pandemic in FCI Danbury. The record before the Court does not support the reconsideration of this Court's denial of Mr. Williams's compassionate release motion. Mr. Williams's Motions for Reconsideration (ECF Nos. 130, 132) are DENIED without prejudice, subject to its reassertion should circumstances warrant.