USA v. Grivas et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, )
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
) MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
vs. )
)
Ian Andrew Beesley, ) Case No. 1:13-cr-076
)
Defendant. )
________________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is the Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence pursuant to the First Step Act
of 2018, filed on April 13, 2020. See Doc. No. 1082. The Government filed a response in opposition
to the motion on April 13, 2020. See Doc. No. 1083. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is
denied.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 13, 2015, Beesley pled guilty to a charge of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute and distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. See Doc. No. 578. On
October 14, 2015, the Court sentenced Beesley to 120-months imprisonment. See Doc. No. 659. No
appeal was taken. On April 13, 2019, Beesley filed the instant motion requesting a reduction of
sentence and compassionate release based on the First Step Act. See Doc. No. 1082. In support of his
motion, Beesley cites the efforts at rehabilitation he has undertaken while incarcerated. The
Government opposes the motion.
1
Case 1:13-cr-00077-DMT Document 1088 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 6

II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) allows the Court to modify a term of imprisonment under two
circumstances: by motion of the Director of the BOP 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.” The record does not reveal any efforts
taken by Beesley to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the First Step Act. Thus, the
motion is not ripe for the Court’s consideration. However, even if the Court were to consider the merits
of the motion, Beesley has not provided an adequate basis for relief.
In considering a motion to reduce sentence, the Court must assess whether, after considering
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, “extraordinary and compelling reasons” exist which warrant a sentence
reduction, and if a sentence reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s applicable policy
statement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Prior to the passage of the First Step Act in 2018, district courts could only grant compassionate
release sentence reductions based upon a motion filed by the director of the BOP. Such motions were
rarely filed. This all changed when the First Step Act was signed into law on December 21, 2018. The
relevant portion of the new law now reads as follows:
(c) Modification of an imposed term of imprisonment.--The court may not modify
a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that–
(1) in any case–
(A) the 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 (and may impose a term of probation or
2
Case 1:13-cr-00077-DMT Document 1088 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 6

supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved
portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the 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.A. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(I) (emphasis added).
Unfortunately, the First Step Act does not define “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” The
Sentencing Commission policy statement can be found at Section 1B1.13 for the 2018 Sentencing
Guidelines Manual. However, the policy statement pertains to the old law rather than the new law and
thus is of questionable applicability. See United States v. Beck, No. 1:13-CR-186-6, 2019 WL
2716505, at *6 (M.D.N.C. June 28, 2019) (concluding the old policy statement provides helpful
guidance but does not control the district court’s independent assessment of whether “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction.). This Court agrees that the Sentencing
Commission’s existing policy statement provides only limited guidance. See United States v. Fox, No.
2:14-CR-03, 2019 WL 3046086, at *3 (D. Me. July 11, 2019). In addition, the Sentencing Commission
will not be publishing a 2019 or 2020 Sentencing Guidelines Manual for lack of a quorum. Beck, No.
1:13-CR-186-6, 2019 WL 2716505, at *5 n.7. The Application Note to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 provides
as follows:
1. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.--Provided the defendant meets the
requirements of subdivision (2), extraordinary and compelling reasons exist
under any of the circumstances set forth below:
(A) Medical Condition of the Defendant.--
(i) The defendant is suffering from a terminal illness (i.e., a serious
and advanced illness with an end of life trajectory). A specific
prognosis of life expectancy (i.e., a probability of death within
a specific time period) is not required. Examples include
3
Case 1:13-cr-00077-DMT Document 1088 Filed 05/20/20 Page 3 of 6

metastatic solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
(ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced dementia.
(ii) The defendant is–
(I) suffering from a serious physical or medical condition,
(II) suffering from a serious functional or cognitive
impairment, or
(III) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health
because of the aging process,
that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to
provide self-care within the environment of a correctional
facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.
(B) Age of the Defendant.--The defendant (i) is at least 65 years old; (ii) is
experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health because
of the aging process; and (iii) has served at least 10 years or 75 percent
of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less.
(C) Family Circumstances.--
(i) The death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the
defendant's minor child or minor children.
(ii) 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.
(D) Other Reasons.--As determined by the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons, there exists in the defendant's case an extraordinary and
compelling reason other than, or in combination with, the reasons
described in subdivisions (A) through (C).
2. Foreseeability of Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.--For purposes of
this policy statement, an extraordinary and compelling reason need not have
been unforeseen at the time of sentencing in order to warrant a reduction in the
term of imprisonment. Therefore, the fact that an extraordinary and compelling
reason reasonably could have been known or anticipated by the sentencing court
does not preclude consideration for a reduction under this policy statement.
3. Rehabilitation of the Defendant.--Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(t),
rehabilitation of the defendant is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling
4
Case 1:13-cr-00077-DMT Document 1088 Filed 05/20/20 Page 4 of 6

reason for purposes of this policy statement.
4. Motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.--A reduction under this
policy statement may be granted only upon motion by the Director of the Bureau
of Prisons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Commission encourages
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to file such a motion if the defendant
meets any of the circumstances set forth in Application Note 1. The court is in
a unique position to determine whether the circumstances warrant a reduction
(and, if so, the amount of reduction), after considering the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the criteria set forth in this policy statement, such as the
defendant's medical condition, the defendant's family circumstances, and
whether the defendant is a danger to the safety of any other person or to the
community.
This policy statement shall not be construed to confer upon the defendant any
right not otherwise recognized in law.
5. Application of Subdivision (3).--Any reduction made pursuant to a motion by
the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for the reasons set forth in subdivisions (1)
and (2) is consistent with this policy statement.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
Beesley contends his rehabilitative efforts while incarcerated are deserving of a reduction in
sentence. Beesley cites to several positive steps he has taken while incarcerated, including completion
of adult education classes and RDAP along with being free of any infractions while serving his
sentence. While Beesley is to be commended for these actions, the law is clear – rehabilitation alone
is not a basis for a reduction in sentence. See 28 U.S.C. § 994(t).
The Court has carefully reviewed the entire record and concludes Beesley has failed to
demonstrate “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that would warrant a sentence reduction at this
time. See United States v. Jones, 836 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir. 2016) (the burden is on the defendant
to establish a sentence reduction is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)). The Court concludes that
Beesley has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with the BOP before first bringing this motion
to the district court. That is a prerequisite to filing this motion for compassionate release under the First
5
Case 1:13-cr-00077-DMT Document 1088 Filed 05/20/20 Page 5 of 6

Step Act. In addition, Beesley has failed to sustain his burden of proof to demonstrate an
“extraordinary and compelling reason” that would warrant a sentence reduction because rehabilitative
efforts of a defendant are not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason for a compassionate
release.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly and for the reasons set forth above, the Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence
(Doc. No. 1082) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 20th day of May, 2020.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
6
Case 1:13-cr-00077-DMT Document 1088 Filed 05/20/20 Page 6 of 6