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
SECOND ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
After remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration of
Defendant Jacob Lyman’s motion to reduce sentence in light of the Circuit’s
guidance in United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2021), Lyman argues that
this Court has “broad discretion” to grant his motion due to his health issues, the
coronavirus pandemic, his “rehabilitation,” and changes in the law. 	Having
considered the reasons presented in his supplemental briefing, and exercising its
“broad discretion,” the Court DENIES the motion to reduce sentence again. 	As
more fully set forth below, because the incidences of coronavirus at Lyman’s place
of incarceration are non-existent, the Court does not find any reason to reduce his
sentence for health- or medically-related reasons. 	The Court also does not find
Lyman’s alleged rehabilitation or changes in the law warrant any reduction.
Case 1:12-cr-01256-DKW Document 80 Filed 06/25/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID.<pageID>

2
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 application of a Section 851 Special Information
established a prior drug conviction for purposes of enhanced sentencing. 	Dkt. Nos.
29, 55; 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 851.
On July 2, 2020, Lyman filed a motion to reduce sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (“motion”). 	Dkt. No. 59. 	This Court denied the
motion on July 27, 2020, finding that Lyman had failed to show extraordinary and
compelling reasons for reducing his sentence. 	Dkt. No. 66. 	Lyman appealed that
determination, Dkt. No. 68, and, on May 14, 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated and
remanded the denial of the motion, Dkt. No. 74. 	The Circuit did so because it
determined that this Court relied on the policy statement for U.S. Sentencing
Guideline 1B1.13, which it concluded in Aruda could “inform” a district court’s
decision, but was not binding. 	Id. at 2 (quotation omitted).
Upon issuance of the mandate, this Court provided the parties with an
opportunity to supplement the record. 	Dkt. No. 76. 	On June 21, 2021, Lyman did
so. 	Dkt. No. 77. 	In contrast, much like it did when it failed to respond to the
Case 1:12-cr-01256-DKW Document 80 Filed 06/25/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID.<pageID>

3
motion initially, the government did not file any supplemental briefing with respect
to the same. 	This Order follows.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Section 3582(c), a court may not modify a term of imprisonment,
except, as pertinent here, if: (1) the defendant exhausts administrative rights to the
extent set forth in the statute; (2) the Court considers the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. Section 3553(a); and (3) the Court finds “extraordinary and compelling
reasons warrant” a sentence reduction. 	18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).1
DISCUSSION
In his supplemental briefing, Lyman argues that this Court should reduce his
sentence either “significant[ly]” or at least “in some fashion” for various reasons.
Dkt. No. 77 at 10-11. 	Those reasons include his alleged health issues, such as
asthma, obesity, fluctuating A1C levels, and effects from contracting the
coronavirus, the pandemic itself, his alleged “rehabilitation,” and changes in the law.
Id. at 7-11.2 	The Court finds none of these reasons warrant a reduction of sentence
in this case.
1 The statute also requires that a sentence reduction be “consistent with applicable policy
statements” of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, but the Ninth Circuit has concluded that no such
policy statement exists for motions brought by a defendant under Section 3582(c)(1)(A). 	Aruda,
993 F.3d at 802.
2Lyman also argues−in fact, spends the majority of his brief arguing−that this Court should reject
the commentary to Sentencing Guideline 1B1.13. 	Dkt. No. 77 at 2-6. 	Lyman does so despite the
Case 1:12-cr-01256-DKW Document 80 Filed 06/25/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID.<pageID>

4
First, as the Court discussed in the July 27, 2020 Order, at that time, there
were only two cases of coronavirus at Lyman’s place of incarceration−FCI
Lompoc−and the persons inflicted were members of the Lompoc staff. 	As of the
date of this Order, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) reports a total of zero cases, among
both inmates and staff. 	See https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last visited June 25,
2021). 	BOP data further reflects that, at the wider Lompoc facility, 1,222 inmates
have been fully vaccinated against the coronavirus. 	Id. 	Thus, while this data does
not show the number of inoculated inmates at FCI Lompoc specifically, given the
widespread inoculation at the Lompoc facility, it is not surprising that cases reported
from FCI Lompoc are non-existent.3 	Put simply, given the non-existence of
reported coronavirus cases at FCI Lompoc, the Court does not find that Lyman’s
health conditions combined with the pandemic constitute reasons for reducing his
sentence.
Second, throwing into the mix Lyman’s alleged rehabilitation and changes in
the law does nothing to change the calculus. 	As for rehabilitation, while the Court
has reviewed the exhibit containing Lyman’s education courses (Dkt. No. 77-6), the
Ninth Circuit expressly stating in Aruda that the guideline may “inform” a district court’s
discretion. 	Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802. 	In any event, herein, the Court simply exercises the “broad
discretion” Defendant seeks to ascribe to it in resolving the instant motion.
3 FCC Lompoc is made up of two facilities: FCI Lompoc and USP Lompoc. 	Combined, they
house approximately 1,850 inmates. 	Across the two facilities, the BOP’s data reflects a total of
zero active cases, among both inmates and staff. 	See https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus (last
visited June 25, 2021).
Case 1:12-cr-01256-DKW Document 80 Filed 06/25/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID.<pageID>

5
Court does not understand−and Lyman does not explain−how any of the courses
have rehabilitated him. 	As for changes in the law, assuming for argument’s sake
that such changes might provide support, in conjunction with other reasons, for a
sentence reduction under Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), in this case they do not.
Specifically, the Court does not find the reduction in the mandatory sentence from
240 months to 180 months or the speculation that Lyman might have been
safety-valve eligible under new case law to constitute reasons for reducing his
sentence. 	Instead, the Court continues to find the sentence that was imposed
appropriate under all of the circumstances.
Accordingly, Lyman’s motion to reduce sentence, Dkt. No. 59, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 25, 2021 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
United States of America v. Jacob Lyman; CR 12-01256 DKW; SECOND ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
Case 1:12-cr-01256-DKW Document 80 Filed 06/25/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID.<pageID>