USA v. Lyman

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI’I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACOB LYMAN,
Defendant.
Case No. 12-cr-01256-DKW
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REDUCE SENTENCE
Defendant Jacob Lyman moves for a reduction in his sentence to time-
served, arguing that the “growing COVID-19 pandemic,” in conjunction with his
medical conditions, constitute an “extraordinary and compelling” circumstance
justifying relief pursuant to Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) of Title 18. 	Alternatively,
Lyman argues that his sentence should be reduced from 240 to 180 months
imprisonment because the First Step Act reduced the mandatory minimum
sentence that would apply in this case, which, he contends, also constitutes an
“extraordinary and compelling” reason for relief. 	The Court disagrees on both
counts. 	First, while Lyman asserts that he suffers from certain risk factors for the
coronavirus, the record reflects that he has already contracted the virus and not
reported any adverse consequences. 	In addition, the facility at which he is
incarcerated, although once having a high number of cases, now has no instances
Case 1:12-cr-01256-DKW Document 66 Filed 07/27/20 Page 1 of 6 PageID.<pageID>

2
of inmate infection. 	Second, as far as this Court is concerned, the change in the
law occasioned by the First Step Act is not an “extraordinary and compelling”
circumstance warranting release or reduction under Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 	As
a result, for the reasons discussed below, the motion to reduce sentence, Dkt. No.
59, is DENIED.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 31, 2014, Lyman was sentenced to a mandatory minimum sentence
of 240 months imprisonment after pleading guilty to distribution of 50 grams or
more of methamphetamine and after the government filed a Section 851 Special
Information with respect to a prior drug conviction against him. 	Dkt. Nos. 29, 55;
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 851.
On July 2, 2020, Lyman filed the instant motion to reduce sentence pursuant
to Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 	Dkt. No. 59. 	Although the government was given
until July 16, 2020 to file a response to the motion, Dkt. No. 61, no response has
been filed. 	On July 21, 2020, Lyman also filed a “Supplemental Memorandum”
in support of his motion. 	Dkt. No. 65.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a court may, after considering the
factors set forth in Section 3553(a), modify a term of imprisonment if, upon motion
Case 1:12-cr-01256-DKW Document 66 Filed 07/27/20 Page 2 of 6 PageID.<pageID>

3
of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or the defendant following
exhaustion of administrative rights related thereto, “extraordinary and compelling
reasons warrant such a reduction[,]” the defendant is not a danger to the safety of
others or the community, and the reduction is consistent with the relevant policy
statement of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. 	18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i);
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
The Sentencing Commission has defined “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” to include, among other things, a defendant suffering from a serious
physical or medical condition that substantially diminishes the ability of the
defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility and
from which he is not expected to recover. 	U.S.S.G. ¶ 1B1.13, app. note 1(A)(ii).
Age and family circumstances may also provide the basis for a finding of
“extraordinary and compelling” (id., app. note 1(B) and (C)), as may a “reason
other than, or in combination with, the reasons described in [the application note].”
Id., app. note 1(D). 	With respect to the latter, the “extraordinary and compelling
reason” must be “determined by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons….” 	Id.
Case 1:12-cr-01256-DKW Document 66 Filed 07/27/20 Page 3 of 6 PageID.<pageID>

4
DISCUSSION
Lyman’s motion to reduce sentence must be denied because he has failed to
show that an “extraordinary and compelling” circumstance exists to order his
release or a reduction in his sentence.
In the motion to reduce sentence and his supplemental memorandum, Lyman
relies on two principal circumstances. 	First, the interaction of the coronavirus
with his medical conditions, and, second, the First Step Act’s affect on the
sentence he would receive if he was sentenced today. 	Neither circumstance,
whether alone or in conjunction, rises to “extraordinary and compelling” for
purposes of this case.
First, as Lyman’s medical records reflect, he contracted the coronavirus in
May 2020. 	Dkt. No. 63 at 2. 1 	However, as the same records further reflect,
Lyman was screened for coronavirus symptoms for almost two weeks after first
being diagnosed and, in every one of those screenings, he denied any symptoms,
such as a cough, as a result of the virus. 	Id. at 9-10. 	Further, the medical records
also state that Lyman’s case of coronavirus was “[r]esolved” approximately two
weeks after his diagnosis. 	Id. at 17. 	In this light, although Lyman asserts that he
1 In citing Lyman’s medical records, the Court cites the page numbers assigned by CM/ECF in
the top right corner of each page, such as “Page 2 of 23.”
Case 1:12-cr-01256-DKW Document 66 Filed 07/27/20 Page 4 of 6 PageID.<pageID>

5
has certain medical conditions that are “risk factors” for the coronavirus, it appears
that the virus has not “substantially diminishe[d]” his ability to provide self-care in
prison. 	See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, app. note 1(A)(ii). 	In addition, the facility in
which Lyman is incarcerated–FCI Lompoc–while once having a high number of
confirmed coronavirus cases, now registers no such cases amongst the inmate
population. 	See https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited July 24, 2020). 2
Second, the Court finds entirely unpersuasive Lyman’s argument that a
change in the law–the First Step Act–constitutes an “extraordinary and
compelling” circumstance under Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 	Among other things, a
sentence reduction under Section 3582(c)(1)(A) must be “consistent with this
policy statement.” 	U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(3). 	In the application notes to Section
1B1.13, it is explained that a reduction “consistent” with the same is one that, in
some form or another, relates to health. 	Notably, application note (A) concerns an
inmate’s health, application note (B) concerns an inmate’s advanced age in
combination with his health, and application note (C) concerns the health of family
members or individuals providing care to a family member. 3 	A change in the law
2 The Bureau of Prisons’ website indicates that there are currently two active cases of coronavirus
amongst “Staff” at FCI Lompoc.
3 Application note (D) is also of no use to Lyman’s argument because, although it references
“other” reasons, those “other” reasons must be “determined by the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons.” 	U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, app. note 1(D); see also United States v. Aruda, Case No. 14-CR-
577-DKW, Dkt. No. 164 at 6-11.
Case 1:12-cr-01256-DKW Document 66 Filed 07/27/20 Page 5 of 6 PageID.<pageID>

6
is, obviously, not remotely proximate to an individual’s health. 	Thus, to give
consistency any meaning, a change in the law is not “consistent” with Section
1B1.13’s policy statement. 	Further, deeming the First Step Act an “extraordinary
and compelling” circumstance would also be inconsistent with the First Step Act
itself, which expressly does not make the change in the law upon which Lyman
relies retroactive to individuals such as himself. 	First Step Act, Pub. L. No. 115-
391, 132 Stat. 5194, § 401(c).
Accordingly, Lyman’s motion to reduce sentence, Dkt. No. 59, is DENIED. 4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 27, 2020 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
United States of America v. Jacob Lyman; Cr 12-01256 DKW; ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
4 Because the Court denies the motion for failure to establish an “extraordinary and compelling”
circumstance under Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the Court need not, and does not, address any of
the other showings that must be made in order for such a motion to be granted.
Case 1:12-cr-01256-DKW Document 66 Filed 07/27/20 Page 6 of 6 PageID.<pageID>