USA v. Villarreal et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:18-CR-00048-KDB-SCR-13
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s fifth pro se motion for compassionate
release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), the First Step Act of 2018, and appointment of
counsel. (Doc. No. 456). Defendant seeks compassionate release arguing he suffers from gross
inadequate and negligent care while in Bureau of Prison (BOP) custody and he should get the
benefit of Amendment 821. It should be noted that this Court has already granted Defendant’s
request for the application of Amendment 821 as reflected in the Court’s order in Document 449.
Having carefully reviewed the Defendant’s motion, exhibits, and all other relevant portions of the
record, the Court will deny his motion for compassionate release as Defendant has not met his
burden to establish that a sentencing reduction is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
According to Defendant’s Presentence Report, he has been diagnosed with Type II diabetes
and high blood pressure and incurred a stroke in October 2017, requires a cane to walk and he
states that he experiences the loss of feeling in his face, arms, and legs. (Doc. No. 291, ¶¶ 69, 70).
In his previous third motion, Defendant stated that he suffers from vitreous hemorrhage of both
eyes, macular edema of both eyes, traction detachment of both eyes, hypertension, Type II
diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, vertigo, and complications from a stroke. (Doc. No. 421,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v. ORDER
MARTIN VIDAL SANTILLAN,
Defendant.
Case 5:18-cr-00048-KDB-SCR Document 458 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 3

Exhibit 1, at 2). In the BOP medical records (only covering late 2019) submitted by the Defendant,
it showed that he did have vitreous hemorrhage of both eyes, macular edema of both eyes, traction
detachment of both eyes, Type II diabetes, hypertension, and cerebrovascular disease. (Doc. No.
422, at 3, 9). However, the same records also showed that he had been to ophthalmology consults
and is receiving treatment for his ailments. (Doc. No. 422). In his previous fourth motion,
Defendant also claimed that he suffered from lung disease, asthma, obesity, high cholesterol, total
blindness in right eye and sixty percent blindness in the left eye. (Doc. No. 432 at 1). Defendant
also claimed to be confined to a wheelchair and experiencing greater difficulty providing self-care.
Id. at 2. Defendant failed to provide his BOP medical records to substantiate these additional
medical claims and therefore, there was no extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence
reduction. (Doc. No. 433).
In Defendant’s current motion, his new claim is that he suffers from gross inadequate and
negligent care while in Bureau of Prison (BOP) custody. (Doc. No. 456, at 3). He states that he
suffers from hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, poor oral health, and vision issues. Id. The
Court has thoroughly reviewed the voluminous medical records submitted by Defendant and the
records show that Defendant has hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, poor oral health, and
vision issues and is receiving treatment and medication to address each issue. (Doc. No. 456,
Exhibits A through F). The medical records speak loud and clear that he is receiving excellent
care. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds no extraordinary and compelling reason for Defendant’s
release.
There is no general constitutional right to appointed counsel in post-conviction
proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987); United States v. Williamson,
706 F.3d 405, 416 (4th Cir. 2013). The Court has discretion to appoint counsel in proceedings
Case 5:18-cr-00048-KDB-SCR Document 458 Filed 10/02/24 Page 2 of 3

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) if the interests of justice so require. See United States v. Legree, 205
F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Reed, 482 F. App’x 785, 786 (4th Cir.
2012); cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (providing the interests of justice standard for appointment of
counsel in similar post-conviction proceedings).
Defendant has not established that the interests of justice require appointment of counsel
in these circumstances at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s fifth pro se motion for compassionate
release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), and appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 456), is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 2, 2024
Case 5:18-cr-00048-KDB-SCR Document 458 Filed 10/02/24 Page 3 of 3