USA v. Lytle et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 3:17-CR-50020-RAL
Plaintiff,
OPINION AND ORDER ON RENEWED
vs. MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE
RELEASE
ROBERT LARRY LYTLE,
Defendant.
In April of2020, Robert Larry Lytle (Lytle)filed a motion for compassionate release. Doc.
434. On August 17, 2020, this Court issued an opinion and order denying Lytle's motion. Doc.
456. About four months after this Court's judgment, Lytle filed a renewed motion for
compassionate release with this Court. Doc. 458. The Government has responded in opposition.
Doc. 459.
I. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
As a threshold matter, this Court must determine whether Lytle was required to exhaust his
administrative remedies. The Government contends that Lytle was required to submit his case to
the warden of his institution because Lytle essentially presents new grounds for compassionate
release. Doc.459 at 2-3. To support this contention,the Government cites to a prior decision from
this Court as well as authority from other jurisdictions. In United States v. Hansen. 4:13-cr-40053-
KES, Doc. 119, this Court granted the defendant's motion for reconsideration before giving the
government an opportunity to respond to the defendant's motion. Consequently, the government
filed its own motion to reconsider in which it pointed out that the defendant had failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies. Id. Agreeing with the government, this Court granted the
1
Case 5:17-cr-50020-RAL Document 461 Filed 12/29/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

government's motion to reeonsider and denied the defendant's motion to reconsider. Id,; see also
United States v. Nwankwo. No. 12 CR 31(VM), 2020 WL 7335287, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14,
2020)(citing United States v. Read-Forbes. No. CR 12-20099-01, 2020 WL 4726685, at *3 (D.
Kan. Aug. 13, 2020) ("To file a renewed motion, however, defendant first must exhaust
administrative remedies based on the new information."(citing cases)).
While Lytle relies on his original arguments to support his motion for reconsideration,
Ljdle advances new arguments as well. After having considered each of Lytle's new arguments,
this Court concludes that it does not need to opine on whether Lytle exhausted his administrative
remedies because even if the administrative exhaustion requirements have been met, Lytle's case
fails on the merits.
11. Merits of Lytle's Case
Lytle's renewed motion for compassionate release is based on the following three grounds:
(1) the increase in number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 at Federal Correctional Institution
Gilmer (FCI Gilmer); (2) the development of legal authority surrounding the compassionate
release remedy under 18 U.S.C. § 3852(c)(1)(A); and (3)the four months that have passed since
this Court issued its opinion and order denying Lytle's original motion for compassionate release.
Doc. 458 at 1. This Court will now address each of Lytle's arguments in turn.
First, Lytle points out that the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases at FCI Gilmer has
increased "dramatically," and argues in tum that he faces a greater risk of infection. Doc. 458 at
3-4. At the time this Court issued its ruling in August, FCI Gilmer had zero active inmate
mfections of COVID-19 and one active COVID-19 case among the facility's staff; five inmates
had recovered from the illness, and the facility had reported no deaths. Doe. 456 at 14. As it stands
today, FCI Gilmer currently has 16 active inmate infections of COVID-19 and five active COVID-
Case 5:17-cr-50020-RAL Document 461 Filed 12/29/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

19 cases among the facility's staff; 149 inmates and 17 staff have recovered from the illness, and
the facility still has reported no deaths. See COVID-19, Coronavirus, Federal Bureau of Prisons
https://www.hop.gov/coronavirus/(last visited Dec. 28, 2020).
While it is true that the number of active cases and the number ofthose that have recovered
from the illness have increased since August, the fact remains that the facility has reported no
inmate or staff deaths. The BOP has taken precautions to protect Lytle and his fellow inmates.
BOP Implementing Modified Operations, Federal Bureau of Prisons,
https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ covidl9_status.jsp (last visited Dec. 28,2020).
In any event, even -with the increase in COVID-19 cases, this Court cannot say to what
extent Lytle's life is at risk. The CDC has acknowledged that individuals over eighty-five are at
the greatest risk for developing a severe illness if they contract COVID-19 and has identified
hypertension as a condition which might increase a person's risk. See Older Adults, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-
precautions/older-adults.html (last visited Dec. 28, 2020); People with Certain Medical
Conditions, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-
conditions.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fv\ww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-
ncov%2Fneed-extra-precautions%2Fgroups-at-higher-risk.html (last visited Dec. 28, 2020).
Although Lytle is 85 years old and suffers from several medical conditions including hypertension,
the likelihood that he will suffer severe complications if he contracts disease remains unknovra.
Next, Lytle emphasizes that an increasing number of prisoners have been granted
compassionate release by courts since the COVID-19 outbreak and contends that the increased
number of granted motions should weigh in his favor. Doc. 458 at 4. However, Lytle fails to cite
Case 5:17-cr-50020-RAL Document 461 Filed 12/29/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

to any cases in which similarly situated defendants were granted compassionate release. Lytle's
case presents unique circumstances because he was committing fraud well into his eighties, in total
disregard ofthe preliminary injunction that this Court had issued. Further, he was unrepentant for
his actions up until sentencing. Thus, while more defendants across the nation may be receiving
sentence reductions than they did during apre-COVID-19 era,there are special circumstances here
that militate against compassionate release.
Finally, Lytle argues the § 3553(a) sentencing factors now support a time-served sentence
because he has served an additional four months since this Court's August ruling. This Court
disagrees. Lytle received effectively a 12-year custody sentence for the offenses to which he pled
guilty. According to his BOP custody records, Lytle has served only 17.3% of his full term, and
20.3% of his "statutory term." Doc. 443 at 182. That Ljdle has served an additional four months
since this Court's August ruling does little to move the needle. Lytle has still only served less than
a fourth ofhis custody sentence. Given the facts and circumstances ofthe offense, which this Court
discusses at more length in its August ruling,^ Doc. 456, a time-served sentence remains
insufficient to achieve the goals ofthe §3553(a)sentencing factors.
In sum, this Court carefully considered the applicable law and how it applied to Lytle's
case in reaching its decision on Lytle's original motion for compassionate release. This Court
ultimately determined that compassionate release was not warranted, and Lytle has not presented
any evidence that justifies a different outcome. For the reasons stated herein as well as those
reasons previously articulated by the Court, Doc. 456, this Court denies Lytle's renewed
motion for compassionate release. Doc. 458.
Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that Lytle's Renewed Motion for Compassionate Release, Doc.458,is denied.
4
Case 5:17-cr-50020-RAL Document 461 Filed 12/29/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>

DATED this day of December,2020.
BY THE COURT:
ROBERTO A. LA
CHIEF JUDGE
Case 5:17-cr-50020-RAL Document 461 Filed 12/29/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>