USA v. DOE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOHN DOE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket no. 2:11-cr-00136-GZS
ORDER ON MOTION FOR A REDUCTION IN SENTENCE
Before the Court is a pro se motion by Defendant John Doe titled, “Motion for
Reconsideration for Compassionate Release/Reduction in Sentence (RIS) in Light of New
Evidence” (ECF No. 199). For reasons explained herein, the Court DENIES the Motion.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) “authorizes a court to reduce a term of imprisonment when
‘extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction’” and the prisoner seeking the
reduction has exhausted his administrative remedies. United States v. Ruvalcaba, 26 F.4th 14, 18
(1st Cir. 2022). To grant a motion under section 3582(c)(1)(A), “the district court must find both
that the defendant has presented an ‘extraordinary and compelling’ reason warranting a sentence
reduction and that ‘such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
[United States] Sentencing Commission.’” 	Id. at 18-19 (citations omitted). 	With respect to a
prisoner-initiated motion under section 3582(c)(1)(A), however, there is no applicable policy
Case 2:11-cr-00136-LEW Document 205 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
statement that is binding on the Court’s review of such motion. 	See id. at 23.1 As such, when
reviewing a prisoner-initiated motion for compassionate release, “district courts enjoy broad
discretion[] 	and 	may 	conduct 	a holistic review 	to 	determine whether 	the individualized
circumstances, taken in the aggregate, present an ‘extraordinary and compelling’ reason to grant
compassionate release.” United States v. Trenkler, 47 F.4th 42, 47 (1st Cir. 2022); see Ruvalcaba,
26 F.4th at 18-19 (“[A] district court, reviewing a prisoner-initiated motion for compassionate
release . . . , may consider any complex of circumstances raised by a defendant as forming an
extraordinary and compelling reason warranting relief.”).
If a court determines that the defendant’s motion has presented extraordinary and
compelling reasons to warrant a sentencing reduction, it must then consider any applicable factors
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) “and ‘determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction . . . is warranted
in whole or in part under the particular circumstances of the case.’” 	Ruvalcaba, 26 F.4th at 19
(quoting United States v. Saccoccia, 10 F.4th 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2021)); see, e.g., United States v.
Almeida, No. 2:11-cr-00127-DBH, 2021 WL 22332, at *2 (D. Me. Jan. 4, 2021) (denying
compassionate release based on § 3553(a) factors after finding that defendant’s medical conditions
were extraordinary and compelling in light of the coronavirus pandemic).
I. 	DISCUSSION
Defendant John Doe, 42 years old, has served approximately 56 percent of his 240-month
sentence. (ECF No. 201-2, PageID # 1144.) He is currently serving his sentence at FCI Allenwood
Low with a projected release date of December 9, 2028. (ECF No. 201-3, PageID # 1146.) The
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) most recently categorized him as a Physical Care Level 2 and Mental
1 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement applicable to a compassionate-release
motion brought by the BOP, “nonetheless may serve as a non-binding reference” for a court’s review of a
compassionate-release motion brought by a prisoner. See Ruvalcaba, 26 F.4th at 23.
Case 2:11-cr-00136-LEW Document 205 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Health Care Level 2. 	(Id.) 	While incarcerated in June 2018, Doe had emergency back surgery;
following that surgery, he has had issues with mobility, pain, and incontinence. (See generally ECF
No. 201-4.) He previously filed motions seeking compassionate release with the Court in July 2020
(ECF No. 186) and August 2020 (ECF No. 188). 	In its November 12, 2020 ruling denying Doe
compassionate release, the Court noted that Defendant was slated for transfer to a BOP medical
facility for further treatment. (ECF No. 198, PageID # 1110.) He was thereafter admitted to FMC
Devens on February 11, 2021. (ECF No. 201-4, PageID # 1220.) After undergoing evaluation and
treatment at FMC Devens, he was discharged and thereafter transferred to his current BOP facility
in May 2022. (ECF No. 201-4, PageID #s 1220-22; ECF No. 201-6, PageID # 1233.) He filed his
pending Motion in August 2022.
The Court concludes that Defendant’s current Motion must be denied because he has failed
to establish that he has exhausted his administrative remedies for compassionate release prior to
filing the pending Motion. 	(See ECF No. 201-1, PageID # 1143.) 	Section 3582(c)(1)(A)’s
administrative exhaustion requirement is “a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule.” 	United
States v. Texeira-Nieves, 23 F.4th 48, 53 (1st Cir. 2022). As such, exhaustion is mandatory unless
waived or conceded by the Government. See United States v. Hassan, No. 2:16-cr-00084-JDL,
2020 WL 6163125, at *2 (D. Me. Oct. 21, 2020). Here, the Government has raised an exhaustion
objection to Defendant’s Motion. 	(See ECF No. 201, PageID #s 1134-36.) 	Thus, the Court
concludes that the pending request for compassionate release is subject to dismissal without
prejudice based on Defendant’s failure to exhaust.
To the extent that Defendant attempts to sidestep the exhaustion requirement by framing
his current Motion as a request for reconsideration, the Court does not agree that this framing is
appropriate on the current record. Rather, the Court agrees with the Government that this request
Case 2:11-cr-00136-LEW Document 205 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
for reconsideration is untimely. (See id., PageID #s 1136-37.) Simply put, a motion filed nearly
two years after the filing of a decision that implicitly seeks to have the Court consider intervening
factual developments is not properly considered as a timely request for reconsideration.
Rather, as the Court noted in its earlier ruling, Defendant is free to file “a renewed motion
based on further medical developments and future treatment needs.” (ECF No. 198, PageID # 1111
(emphasis added).) However, before the Court can consider the merits of any renewed motion filed
by Defendant, he must establish that he has presented the current basis for his requested sentence
reduction to BOP and that BOP has denied his request or failed to respond to his request within 30
days of receipt. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). In light of Defendant’s failure to comply with this
exhaustion requirement and the Government’s failure-to-exhaust objection, the Court DENIES
Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 199) without any consideration of the merits.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 21st day of November, 2022.
Case 2:11-cr-00136-LEW Document 205 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>