Opinion
CASE NO. CR18-5152 BHS
08-13-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALLEN D. LINT, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
This matter comes before the Court on Allen Lint's ("Lint") motion for compassionate release. Dkt. 52. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On April 4, 2018, the Government filed a complaint against Lint alleging the crime of possession of LSD with intent to distribute. Dkt. 1. On April 18, 2018, the grand jury returned an indictment against Lint charging a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and possession of LSD with intent to distribute. Dkt. 16. On September 4, 2018, Lint plead guilty to the conspiracy charge. Dkt. 30. On December 3, 2018, the Court sentenced Lint to 60-months imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. Dkt. 43.
On June 4, 2020, Lint filed a motion for compassionate release. Dkt. 52. On June 10, 2020, the Government responded. Dkt. 59. On June 12, 2020, Lint replied. Dkt. 61. On June 25, 2020, the Court requested supplemental briefing. Dkt. 62. On June 30, 2020, the Government responded, Dkt. 63, and Lint responded, Dkt. 64.
II. DISCUSSION
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b), a judgment of conviction that includes a sentence of imprisonment "constitutes a final judgment and may not be modified by a district court except in limited circumstances." Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824 (2010) (internal quotations omitted). Those limited circumstances are provided under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Effective December 21, 2018, the First Step Act of 2018 amended § 3582(c)(1)(A) by adding a provision that allows prisoners to directly petition a district court for compassionate release:
(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon motion of the defendant 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, whichever is earlier, may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that—
(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction;
***18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, a court may reduce a sentence upon motion of a defendant provided that: (1) the inmate has either exhausted his or her administrative appeal rights of the Bureau of Prison's ("BOP") failure to bring such a motion on the inmate's behalf or has waited until 30 days after the applicable warden has received such a request; (2) the inmate has established "extraordinary and compelling reasons" for the requested sentence reduction; and (3) the reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission's policy statement. See id.
and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; . . . .
The Sentencing Commission's policy statement referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) provides, in relevant part:
[T]he court may reduce a term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved portion of the original 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—United States Sentencing Guidelines ("USSG") § 1B1.13.
(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.
In this case, the Court focuses on the § 3553(a) factors in general and specifically the factor relating to Lint's ability to receive proper medical care at his institution of incarceration. In general, Lint has failed to establish that the consideration of these factors has changed since his original sentencing in 2018, which weighs against granting compassionate release. Regarding medical care, however, COVID-19 raises serious concerns given Lint's documented medical conditions and the BOP's ability to protect Lint from infection. While some institutions have been able to prevent the virus from infecting significant numbers of incarcerated individuals and staff, other institutions have experienced widespread infection resulting in serious medical complications including death. Lint is housed at Sheridan, which has only recently experienced an infection in two inmates. See https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last visited 8/13/2020). In light of these facts, the Court finds that this institution's ability to protect Lint and provide proper medical care has not been altered by the global pandemic. Therefore, Lint has failed to establish sufficient reason to warrant a reduction in his sentence to remove him from this institution, and the Court denies his motion.
III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Lint's motion for compassionate release, Dkt. 52, is DENIED.
Dated this 13th day of August, 2020.
/s/_________
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge