USA v. Borges, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MAHINA BACTAD,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CR. NO. 23-00050 HG-05
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE UNDER THE
FIRST STEP ACT (COMPASSIONATE RELEASE) (ECF No. 310)
Defendant is currently incarcerated at Federal Correctional
Institution Victorville with a predicted release date of January
14, 2027.
Defendant has filed a Motion seeking immediate release
pursuant to the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Defendant seeks release to care for four of her minor children.
Defendant claims that her boyfriend Joenis Bactad-Schmitt has
been taking care of the children since she was incarcerated in
April 2025, but alleges in her Motion that he “can no longer
balance work, caregiving, expenses, etc.”
Defendant’s MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE (ECF No. 310)
is DENIED.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 7, 2023, the grand jury returned the Second
1
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

Superseding Indictment, charging Defendant Mahina Bactad with
three counts:
Count 5 for Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1512(k);
Count 6 for Obstruction of Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512(c)(2); and
Count 7 for Obstruction of Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512(c)(2).
(Second Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 68).
On February 15, 2024, Defendant Mahina Bactad pled guilty,
pursuant to a plea agreement, to Count 5 of the Second
Superseding Indictment for Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k). (ECF No. 150).
On March 12, 2025, Defendant’s sentencing hearing was held.
(ECF No. 264). Defendant was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment
and three years of supervised release. (Judgment, ECF No. 266).
Counts 6 and 7 of the Second Superseding Indictment were
dismissed as to Defendant Mahina Bactad. (Id.)
On January 9, 2026, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed a
Motion to Reduce Sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
(compassionate release). (ECF No. 310).
On January 13, 2026, the Court issued a briefing schedule.
(ECF No. 311).
On February 3, 2026, the Government filed its Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release. (ECF No. 318).
Defendant did not file a Reply.
2
---
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

The Court elects to decide the Motion without a hearing
pursuant to District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.1(c).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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, 824-25 (2010).
On December 21, 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act of
2018. PL 115-391, December 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5194. The First
Step Act amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the statute governing the
limited circumstances under which the trial court may evaluate a
motion for reduction of sentence.
The First Step Act altered the statute in Section
3582(c)(1)(A) to allow a defendant to request that the trial
court reduce his sentence through a motion for compassionate
release, but the statute requires the defendant to first present
his request for release to the Bureau of Prisons. 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A).
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act
of 2018, provides, in pertinent part:
[T]he 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...after considering the
3
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

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;
...
and that such a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
SECTION 3582(c)(1)(A) AS AMENDED BY THE FIRST STEP ACT
A. Mandatory Procedural Requirement
The statute allows the Court to consider a defendant’s
request for compassionate release only after the defendant has
first presented his request to the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278,
1282 (9th Cir. 2021).
The Parties agree that Defendant Bactad properly exhausted
her administrative remedies before filing her Motion.
B. Defendant’s Motion For Compassionate Release
A defendant must comply with the mandatory procedural
requirement set forth in the statute which allows modification of
an imposed term of imprisonment as set forth in 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A). In order for a Court to reduce a term of
imprisonment, including the grant of compassionate release, it
must find “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that the request
is consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the
United States Sentencing Commission. Keller, 2 F.4th at 1282.
4
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that
reduction in a sentence based on extraordinary and compelling
reasons pursuant to Section 3582(c)(1)(A) is a “narrow” remedy
and the decision to grant such relief is discretionary with the
District Court, and relief is not mandatory. United States v.
Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2022).
1. Extraordinary And Compelling Reasons As Set Forth
In The United States Sentencing Guidelines
Section 1.B1.13
Section 3582(c)(1)(A) of the United States Code itself does
not define extraordinary and compelling reasons. Congress stated
that the Sentencing Commission shall describe what should be
considered extraordinary and compelling reasons for sentence
reduction, including the criteria to be applied and a list of
specific examples.
In 2023, the United States Sentencing Commission amended its
Policy Statement governing motions for compassionate release in
Section 1B1.13(a).
A defendant must show extraordinary and compelling reasons
to reduce the sentence consistent with the current version of
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. United States v. Kaneko, Cr. No. 19-00062
JMS-01, 2024 WL 1018362, *2 (D. Haw. Mar. 8, 2024).
2. Motion For Compassionate Release May Be Denied
Based On Evaluation Of 3553(a) Factors Alone Even
If Extraordinary And Compelling Reasons Are
Established
5
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 5 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that the
District Court may consider both “extraordinary and compelling”
reasons and the relevant U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, but that it
may deny compassionate release on either basis alone. Wright, 46
F.4th at 945.
A District Court is not required to follow any particular
“sequential step-by-step analysis” in evaluating a motion filed
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284.
ANALYSIS
Defendant Mahina Bactad seeks compassionate release based on
“extraordinary and compelling” reasons. She specifically looks
to her family circumstances, referencing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3).
I. Defendant Has Not Established Extraordinary And Compelling
Reasons For Compassionate Release
A. Family Circumstances Of The Defendant May Provide
Extraordinary And Compelling Reasons For Immediate
Release In Limited Circumstances (§ 1B1.13(b)(3)(A))
Defendant’s Motion relies on Section 1B1.13(b)(3) of the
United States Sentencing Guidelines to request immediate release
due to her family circumstances. Section 1B1.13(b)(3) states
that extraordinary and compelling reasons can exist based on
certain family circumstances of the defendant, which are:
(A) The death or incapacitation of the caregiver
of the defendant’s minor child or the
6
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 6 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

defendant’s child who is 18 years of age or
older and incapable of self-care because of a
mental or physical disability or a medical
condition.
(B) The incapacitation of the defendant’s spouse
or registered partner when the defendant
would be the only available caregiver for the
spouse or registered partner.
(C) The incapacitation of the defendant’s parent
when the defendant would be the only
available caregiver for the parent.
(D) The defendant establishes that circumstances
similar to those listed in paragraphs (3)(A)
through (3)(C) exist involving any other
immediate family member or an individual
whose relationship with the defendant is
similar in kind to that of an immediate
family member, when the defendant would be
the only available caregiver for such family
member or individual. For purposes of this
provision, “immediate family member” refers
to any of the individuals listed in
paragraphs (3)(A) through (3)(C) as well as a
grandchild, grandparent, or sibling of the
defendant.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3).
B. Defendant Seeks to Be Released to Care for Her Own
Children
Mahina Bactad was convicted of conspiring with her husband
Albert Bactad and others to corruptly obstruct, influence, and
impede an official proceeding, namely this case. (Presentence
Report at ¶ 4, ECF No. 243). The events took place while he was
in prison awaiting trial on the original charges brought in this
case.
Albert Bactad was convicted and sentenced on March 13, 2025
to one hundred sixty months in prison.
7
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 7 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

Guideline (A) is the only one applicable to the care of
Defendant’s children. The Bactads had five children together:
Maluhia Bactad, Halia Palomares-Bactad, Kanai Bactad, Kahiau
Bactad, and Keanu Bactad. Four of the children resided with
Defendant before her incarceration. One of the children, Kanai
Bactad, resided with her sister-in-law. (Id.)
Prior to her incarceration, Defendant was in a relationship
with her husband’s second-cousin Joenis Bactad-Schmitt. (Id. at
¶ 54). According to the PSR, Mr. Bactad-Schmitt was employed as
a technician at Kauai Marine and Movers. (Id.) According to
Defendant, Mr. Bactad-Schmitt has been the caregiver for some of
Defendant’s minor children since her incarceration on April 23,
2025. (Motion at p. 1, ECF No. 31).
On January 9, 2026, Defendant filed her Motion for
Compassionate Release, stating that her “boyfriend of 2 years,
Joenis Bactad-Schmitt (self-employed), can no longer take care of
[her four minor children] due to his work as a landscaper which
is his only source of income and can no longer balance, work,
caregiving, expenses, etc.” (Motion at p. 1, ECF No. 310).
There is no evidence that the children’s caregiver, Mr.
Bactad-Schmitt, is incapacitated. Under Guideline (A), Defendant
must establish that the caregiver of her minor children has
either died or has become incapacitated in order to qualify as an
“extraordinary and compelling” reason for compassionate release
under Section 1B1.13(b)(3)(A) . United States v. Head, 2025 WL
8
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 8 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

2229803, *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2025).
Incapacitation means suffering a severe injury or severe
illness that renders the caregiver incapable of caring for the
child. Id. As the Government points out in its Opposition,
there is no evidence that Mr. Bactad-Schmitt is incapacitated.
Courts have explained that “the bar to show incapacitation
is a high one” and hardship alone is insufficient as nearly all
defendants with minor children suffer hardship in finding care
for their minor children while they are incarcerated. United
States v. Smith, 2024 WL 4556521, at *5 (D. Nev. Oct. 22, 2024).
C. There Is No Evidence That Defendant Mahina Bactad Is
The Only Available Caregiver For Her Minor Children
Defendant asserts Mr. Bactad-Schmitt no longer wishes to
care for her children. Even if Mr. Bactad-Schmitt could no
longer care for the children due to incapacitation, Defendant
Mahina Bactad has not established that she is the only person who
could care for the children to support immediate release pursuant
to Section 1B1.13(b)(3).
The Presentence Report indicates that one of her minor
children permanently resides with her sister-in-law.
(Presentence Report at ¶53, ECF No. 243). Defendant’s own Motion
also states that two of her children have resided with other
family members at some point during Defendant Mahina Bactad’s
incarceration since April 2025. (Motion at p. 2, ECF No. 310).
There is insufficient information or evidence as to the
9
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 9 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

availability of other family members to care for Defendant’s
minor children. It is Defendant’s burden to establish that she
is the only available caregiver and not simply that she would be
a better caregiver. See United States v. Castle, 2024 WL
3429668, *3 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2024).
Defendant has not established extraordinary and compelling
reasons to support compassionate release. There is no evidence
that Defendant is the only possible caretaker for the children.
II. Section 3553(a) Factors And Defendant’s History and
Characteristics Do Not Support Compassionate Release
Even if Defendant had established extraordinary and
compelling reasons as required under Section 1B1.13(b), the Court
in this case would exercise its discretion to deny compassionate
release based on consideration of the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). Wright, 46 F.4th at 945.
A. Instant Offense Conduct
The nature and circumstances of the instant offense do not
support a reduction in Defendant Mahina Bactad’s sentence.
The record reflects that on December 26 and 27, 2021,
Defendant Mahina Bactad’s husband, Albert Bactad, conspired with
Co-Defendant David Borges to collect debts by extortionate means
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 894. Albert Bactad and Borges lured
the two victims under false pretenses to collect drug debts and
10
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 10 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

then threatened, kidnapped, and assaulted the victims.
(Presentence Report at ¶¶ 8-9, ECF No. 243). Albert Bactad
engaged in violence during the incidents and repeatedly struck
both victims in the head, causing serious injury. (Id. at ¶¶ 9-
10).
Following Albert Bactad’s arrest for the offenses, Defendant
Mahina Bactad conspired with Co-Defendants Wayne Inouye and Robin
Takiguchi to attempt to obstruct the prosecution of Albert
Bactad. (Id. at ¶ 12). Defendant Mahina Bactad “coordinated the
efforts of Inouye and Takiguchi” to obtain written statements
from the victims that falsely exculpated her husband. (Id.)
Defendant Mahina Bactad provided the false statements to Albert
Bactad’s attorney in an attempt to obstruct, influence, and
impede the prosecution of her husband. (Id. at ¶ 14). Defendant
Mahina Bactad told her husband on the phone that she directed Co-
Defendant Inouye “to get this fucking shit done.” (Id. at ¶ 19).
Defendant Mahina Bactad pled guilty to one count of
Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1512(k) and was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment. (ECF No.
264).
B. Defendant’s Sentence Remains Appropriate
Defendant’s 30-month sentence remains appropriate
considering the Section 3553(a) factors.
Defendant Mahina Bactad’s immediate release would not
11
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 11 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

adequately reflect the seriousness of the offenses, would not
properly deter similar criminal conduct, and would not protect
the public. Defendant Mahina Bactad willingly attempted to
interfere with and obstruct the prosecution of her husband.
Defendant Mahina Bactad was an organizer and leader in
criminal activity for which she received a 2-point increase in
her sentencing guidelines. (Presentence Report at ¶ 35, ECF No.
243). Defendant admitted in her plea agreement that she
“coordinated” the efforts of her co-conspirators. She organized
and led Co-Defendants Inouye and Takiguchi to intimidate and
harass the two victims. Defendant Mahina Bactad pressured Inouye
and Takiguchi to obtain false written statements from the
victims. She knowingly provided the false statements to her
husband’s attorney in attempt to obstruct justice. During
recorded phone calls to her husband, Defendant Mahina Bactad
complained that the false statements were not very good,
indicating they lacked specificity despite the fact she was “very
fucking specific” in which she told Inouye and Takiguchi what to
have included in the statements. (Id.)
Defendant’s actions undermine the rule of the law and the
justice system. Her 30-month sentence properly reflects the
seriousness of her offense and a reduction in sentence is not
warranted.
//
//
12
---
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 12 of 13
PageID.<pageID>

CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion To Reduce Sentence Under The First Step
Act (ECF No. 310) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 30, 2026, Honolulu, Hawaii.
United States v. Mahina Bactad, Crim. No. 23-00050 HG-05; ORDER
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE UNDER THE FIRST
STEP ACT (COMPASSIONATE RELEASE) (ECF No. 310)
13
Case 1:23-cr-00050-HG Document 323 Filed 03/30/26 Page 13 of 13
PageID.<pageID>