USA v. Sanders

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GORDON SANDERS,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:17-cr-00040-SLG
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
Before the Court at Docket 64 is defendant Gordon Sanders’ Amended
Motion and Memorandum for Compassionate Release Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A). The government responded in opposition at Docket 66. The U.S.
Probation Office for the District of Alaska filed a sealed Compassionate Release
Investigation Report at Docket 68.
On October 13, 2017, this Court sentenced Mr. Sanders to 60 months
imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to one count of Sexual Exploitation of a
Child—Possession of Child Pornography.1 Mr. Sanders is currently in Bureau of
Prisons (BOP) custody and incarcerated at Terminal Island FCI; his projected
release date is January 11, 2022.2 In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, Mr. Sanders
1 Docket 37 (Judgment); Docket 44 (Amended Judgment).
2 Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Inmate Locator (available at www.bop.gov/inmateloc/) (last accessed
Mar. 11, 2021).
Case 3:17-cr-00040-SLG Document 70 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 8

Case Nos. 3:17-cr-00040-SLG, United States v. Sanders
Order Re Amended Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 2 of 8
seeks an order reducing his sentence to time served and releasing him to home
detention.3
I. Applicable law
The First Step Act of 2018 amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow
federal inmates to move the district court for a sentence reduction after exhausting
their administrative rights.4 If an inmate has exhausted his administrative rights, a
district court must consider the motion on the merits. On the merits, a court must
find that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” a sentence reduction, that
the applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support a sentence
reduction, and that “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”5
II. Exhaustion of administrative rights
An inmate has exhausted his administrative rights if the warden of the
inmate’s facility has denied the inmate’s request for compassionate release or if
30 days have lapsed from the warden’s receipt of the request for compassionate
release.6 Mr. Sanders and the government agree that he requested
3 Docket 64 at 2, 3.
4 First Step Act of 2018, PL 115-391, Dec. 21, 2018, 132 Stat 5194. Prior to this amendment,
only the Director of the Bureau of Prisons could bring a motion to reduce an inmate’s sentence.
5 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
6 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Case 3:17-cr-00040-SLG Document 70 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 8

Case Nos. 3:17-cr-00040-SLG, United States v. Sanders
Order Re Amended Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 3 of 8
compassionate release in September 2020, and the warden denied that request.7
Mr. Sanders has exhausted his administrative rights and the Court will consider
the motion on its merits.
III. Extraordinary and compelling reasons
Mr. Sanders, who is currently 52 years old, submits that his “history of heart
failure, sinusitis, brain aneurysm, congenital venous disease and resulting
immunosuppression as a result of treatment, and a calcified left carotid artery in
need of surgery” are extraordinary and compelling reasons that warrant his release
from custody.8 He also asserts that because of his “medical vulnerabilities to
COVID-19, he cannot exercise self-care in a correctional setting in the midst of the
pandemic.”9
The Court has reviewed 141 pages of Mr. Sanders’ medical records from
2020 and 2021.10 Those records confirm that Mr. Sanders has been diagnosed
with hypertension and has a brain aneurism that is being monitored.11 The Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that people with hypertension “might
be at an increased risk for severe illness” from COVID-19.12 However, the medical
7 Docket 64 at 3; Docket 66 at 4; Docket 66–1, 66-2.
8 Docket 64 at 1–2; accord Docket 64 at 15.
9 Docket 64 at 11.
10 Docket 67-2 (under seal). The majority of Mr. Sanders’ medical records relate to joint pain,
arthritis and dental care.
11 Docket 67-2 at 4, 10.
12 CDC, People with Certain Medical Conditions, available at www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
Case 3:17-cr-00040-SLG Document 70 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 8

Case Nos. 3:17-cr-00040-SLG, United States v. Sanders
Order Re Amended Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 4 of 8
records demonstrate that Mr. Sanders has had access to medical care; that BOP
medical staff are monitoring his health, including a visit with a cardiologist in
September 2020;13 and the BOP has prescribed Mr. Sanders with medication for
hypertension.14
Mr. Sanders also contends that the BOP has not effectively controlled
COVID-19 in its facilities and “he cannot exercise self-care in a correctional setting
in the midst of the pandemic” and cannot “protect himself from exposure to”
COVID-19 and therefore he meets the requirements of U.S.S.G. policy statement
§ 1B1.13.15 However, as of the date of this order, Terminal Island FCI reports zero
inmates and five staff with active cases of COVID-19 and has fully vaccinated
approximately 19% of its inmate population.16 Most notably, Mr. Sanders was
offered the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine in late December 2020 but declined to be
vaccinated.17
ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html (last accessed Mar. 11, 2021).
13 Docket 67-2 at 4, 6, 7.
14 Docket 67-2 at 5, 18.
15 Docket 64 at 11–16.
16 Terminal Island FCI houses 662 inmates and has vaccinated 125 inmates. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, COVID-19: Coronavirus (www.bop.gov/coronavirus/) (last accessed Mar. 11, 2021);
Fed. Bureau of Prisons, FCI Terminal Island (www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/trm/) (last
accessed Mar. 11, 2021).
17 Docket 67-2 at 65, 128.
Case 3:17-cr-00040-SLG Document 70 Filed 03/15/21 Page 4 of 8

Case Nos. 3:17-cr-00040-SLG, United States v. Sanders
Order Re Amended Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 5 of 8
The Court finds that Mr. Sanders has not shown “extraordinary and
compelling” reasons that would justify a reduction in sentence at this time.18
IV. Section 3553(a) factors
In considering a motion for compassionate release, the § 3553(a) factors
are a lens through which the Court views the continued validity of the imposed
sentence in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.19 Mr. Sanders asserts that the
COVID-19 pandemic is an “overriding factor under § 3553(a) that was not present
at the time of sentencing.”20 Mr. Sanders also contends that his potential exposure
to COVID-19 while in BOP custody violates the Eighth Amendment.21
Mr. Sanders’ reference to the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and
unusual punishment cites to several cases.22 The Court has reviewed those cases
and finds that they do not support the Eighth Amendment claim. An Eighth
18 The relevant policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, sorts extraordinary and compelling
reasons into four categories: (1) the medical condition of the defendant, (2) the age of the
defendant, (3) family circumstances, and (4) other reasons as determined by the director of the
BOP that amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons, other than or in combination with the
previous three categories. Whether the policy statement is binding or merely provides guidance
to courts is a matter of disagreement among district courts. However, the Court need not
determine whether § 1B1.13 is binding or advisory because it would reach the same conclusion
in this case regardless of the application of the policy statement.
19 In Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 490–93 (2011), the Supreme Court held that when
resentencing a defendant whose sentence has been set aside on appeal, “a district court may
consider evidence of a defendant’s rehabilitation since his prior sentencing and that such
evidence may, in appropriate cases, support a downward variance from the advisory Guidelines
range.”
20 Docket 64 at 17.
21 Docket 64 at 18.
22 Docket 64 at 18 (citing Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25 (1993); Wallis v. Baldwin, 70 F.3d
1074 (9th Cir. 1995); and Brown v. Mitchell, 327 F. Supp. 2d 615 (E.D. Va. 2004)).
Case 3:17-cr-00040-SLG Document 70 Filed 03/15/21 Page 5 of 8

Case Nos. 3:17-cr-00040-SLG, United States v. Sanders
Order Re Amended Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 6 of 8
Amendment claim such as Mr. Sanders’ requires a showing that the BOP is acting
with “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners” and “ignoring
the possible dangers posed by exposure to” COVID-19.23 Mr. Sanders’ motion
and exhibits do not demonstrate that the BOP is ignoring the dangers presented
by COVID-19 or acting with deliberate indifference.
The Court also finds that the applicable § 3553(a) factors do not support a
reduction in sentence in this case. The crime of conviction involved Mr. Sanders
possessing hundreds of images and videos that depicted child sexual exploitation,
including images of prepubescent children and sadistic, masochistic, or violent
sexual conduct.24 The Court has considered and weighed that Mr. Sanders has
no prior criminal history, has no BOP disciplinary history, has been employed while
in BOP custody, is nearing the end of his sentence, and has an approved release
plan.25 However, Mr. Sanders has acknowledged a “lifetime addiction” to
pornography that led to his interest in child pornography, and that he needed
treatment to assist him in addressing this addiction.26 Mr. Sanders has not
presented information showing that he has engaged in any type of sex offender
treatment or other mental health treatment while in BOP custody.
23 Helling, 509 U.S. at 32, 36–37; accord Wallis, 70 F.3d at 1076–77.
24 Docket 25 at 10–11 (under seal).
25 Docket 68 (under seal).
26 Docket 25 at 1, 10.
Case 3:17-cr-00040-SLG Document 70 Filed 03/15/21 Page 6 of 8

Case Nos. 3:17-cr-00040-SLG, United States v. Sanders
Order Re Amended Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 7 of 8
The Probation Officer who completed the Compassionate Release
Investigation in this case recommended denying Mr. Sanders’ request for a
reduction in sentence because “a sentence reduction would not satisfy the
sentencing goals in this case,” particularly the goals of “deterrence and protection
of the public.”27 The Court agrees and finds that reduction of Mr. Sanders’
sentence would not reflect the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history
and characteristics of Mr. Sanders, or the seriousness of the offense; would not
promote respect for the law, would not afford adequate deterrence, would not
protect the public, and would not provide just punishment.28 Moreover, based on
the nature of the criminal conduct in this case and the lack of any treatment, the
Court cannot conclude that Mr. Sanders is not a danger to the safety of others or
to the community at this time.29
27 Docket 68 at 2.
28 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
29 The policy statement of the Sentencing Commission for a reduction in sentence under §
3582(c)(1)(A) requires a determination that “[t]he defendant is not a danger to the safety of any
other person or to the community.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. There is significant disagreement
among district courts as to the applicability and binding nature of the policy statement. Here,
however, the Court would reach the same conclusion regardless of whether that policy
statement is binding. The Court considers the risk Mr. Sanders presents to the community both
in light of the policy statement and in light of the § 3553(a)(2)(C) consideration of “the need for
the sentence imposed to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.”
Case 3:17-cr-00040-SLG Document 70 Filed 03/15/21 Page 7 of 8

Case Nos. 3:17-cr-00040-SLG, United States v. Sanders
Order Re Amended Motion for Compassionate Release
Page 8 of 8
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion at Docket 64 is
DENIED.
DATED this 13th day of March, 2021, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:17-cr-00040-SLG Document 70 Filed 03/15/21 Page 8 of 8