USA v. Block

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WAYLEN SHERMAN BLOCK,
Defendant.
CR. 17-50068-JLV
ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Waylen Block, appearing pro se, filed a motion for
compassionate release together with a packet of his personal information,
Bureau of Prisons administrative records and medical records. 	(Dockets 103 &
103-1). 	Pursuant to Amended Standing Order 20-06, the Federal Public
Defender for the Districts of South Dakota and North Dakota (“FPD”) and the
United States Attorney for the District of South Dakota filed records,
submissions and briefing on his motion. 	(Dockets 104-106, 118-19 & 123).
Mr. Block also filed two pro se supplements, an exhibit and a motion for
the appointment of counsel. 	(Dockets 107, 115, 115-01 & 120). 	Mr. Block’s
counsel also filed a supplemental brief following the last submission of medical
records. 	(Docket 124). 	For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion for
compassionate release is denied and his motion for appointment of counsel is
denied as moot.
AMENDED STANDING ORDER 20-06
Amended Standing Order 20-06,1 captioned “Establishing a Procedure for
Compassionate Release Motions Under the First Step Act,” put in place “a
1 See https://www.sdd.uscourts.gov/socraa.
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

2
procedure for submission and consideration of compassionate release motions
under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(d)(l)(A), in the wake of the spread of
the COVID-19 virus into the federal prison system.” 	(ASO 20-06 at p. 1). 	By
the standing order, the FPD and the United States Attorney for the District of
South Dakota are “to place [the defendant] into one of four categories[.]” 	Id.
¶ 4. 	Those categories are:
a. 	High Priority Cases where there exists some combination of:
(i) medical issues that correspond to the categories outlined in
the 	commentary 	to 	U.S.S.G. 	§ 	l.B.1.13; 	(ii) 	recognized
COVID-19 risk factors in the inmate’s medical history; and/or
(iii) imprisonment in a federal facility known to have a serious
COVID-19 outbreak in its population. . . .
b. 	Intermediate Priority Cases where identified medical issues
and/or COVID-19 risk factors and/or institutional concerns
are less extreme than High Priority Cases.
c. 	Low Priority Cases where there are no identifiable medical
issues or COVID-19 risk factors.
d. 	Unknown 	Risk 	Cases 	where 	there 	is 	a 	lack 	of 	sufficient
information 	to 	categorize 	the 	request 	for 	compassionate
release.
Id. 	The FPD and U.S. Attorney are to “immediately report the categorization
. . . to the Clerk of Court and the Probation Office.” 	Id.
MR. BLOCK’S CLASSIFICATION
The FPD and the U.S. Attorney filed a notice designating Mr. Block as an
Intermediate Priority case. 	(Docket 104).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Mr. Block pled guilty to receipt of child pornography in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1). 	(Dockets 64 & 81). 	A presentence
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

3
investigation report ordered by the court calculated Mr. Block’s advisory
guideline range as 235 to 293 months of imprisonment based on a total offense
level of 37 and his criminal history category II. 	(Docket 74 ¶ 77). 	Because this
was Mr. Block’s second conviction of possession, manufacture or distribution of
child pornography, the statutory minimum sentence was 15 years (180 months)
up to 40 years (480 months). 	Id. ¶¶ 2, 41 & 76; see also 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1).
On August 10, 2018, Mr. Block was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
240 months followed by 10 years of supervised release. 	(Docket 81 at pp. 2-3).
Mr. Block is currently an inmate at Federal Medical Center (“FMC”)
Devens, an administrative security medical center in Ayer, Massachusetts.2
Fed. Bureau Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last checked February
21, 2023). 	The inmate population at FMC Devens is currently 888 persons with
an additional 61 inmates in the adjacent minimum security satellite camp for a
total inmate population of 949. 	https://www.bop.gov.locations/
institutions/dev/ (last checked February 21, 2023). 	As of February 21, 2023,
there is one active COVID-19 case among inmates and 11 active cases among
staff at FMC Devens. 	https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last checked
2 Mr. Block was originally housed at the Federal Correctional Institution
(“FCI”) Sandstone in Sandstone, Minnesota. 	(Docket 118 at p. 2). 	Because of
his medical condition which will be discussed in detail later in this order, Mr.
Block was transferred to FMC Devens. 	(Docket 115 at p. 2). 	Following
completion of treatment at FMC Devens, Mr. Block was transferred to the
Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) Brooklyn in Brooklyn, New York.
(Docket 118 at p. 2). 	The parties have not notified the court as to the reason for
Mr. Block’s transfer back to FMC Devens.
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

4
February 21, 2023). 	FMC Devens reported 14 deaths of inmates and no staff
deaths as a result of COVID-19, and 342 inmates and 296 staff have recovered as
of February 21, 2023. 	Id.
Mr. Block has a scheduled release date of April 28, 2034. 	https://
www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. 	See also (Docket 106 at p. 1184). 	As of January 1,
2023, he has served approximately 29 percent of his statutory sentence, and
under his current status in the BOP, Mr. Block is eligible for home detention on
October 28, 2033. 	Id. at p. 1183. 	Mr. Block is 50 years old. 	Id. at p. 1
MR. BLOCK’S MOTION
Mr. Block’s pro se motion seeks compassionate release on the basis of
extraordinary and compelling reasons in light of his “chronic kidney disease and
anemia3 . . . [which] classify him as ‘immunocompromised[,]’ [i]n concert with
the relentless presence of COVID-19 and the more contagious and deadly Delta
variant[.]” 	(Docket 103 at p. 5). 	“Mr. Block was admitted to the hospital with
Acute Kidney injury R/T Rhabdomyomas,4 at the same time aggravating his
3 “Anemia is a condition in which you lack enough healthy red blood cells to
carry adequate oxygen to your body’s tissues. 	Having anemia, also referred to
as low hemoglobin, can make you feel tired and weak. . . . Anemia can be
temporary or long term and can range from mild to severe. . . . Treatments for
anemia, which depend on the cause, range from taking supplements to having
medical procedures.” 	https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/
anemia/symptoms-causes/syc-20351360 (last visited December 21, 2022).
4 “Rhabdomyolysis is a serious syndrome due to a direct or indirect muscle
injury. 	It results from the death of muscle fibers and release of their contents
into the bloodstream. 	This can lead to serious complications such as renal
(kidney) failure. . . . Nontraumatic causes of rhabdomyolysis include . . .
[e]xtreme muscle strain[.]” 	https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/
rhabdomyolysis-symptoms-causes-treatments (last visited December 21, 2022).
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

5
service connected disability . . . for Central Serus Chorioretinopathy [“CSC”],
losing most of his vision in his right eye.” 	Id. at pp. 5-6 (referencing Docket
103-1 at p. 20). 	Mr. Block received a 10% disability rating from the Veteran’s
Administration due to his CSC. 	(Docket 103-1 at p. 20). 	Mr. Block complains
the BOP facilities have created “excessively harsh conditions of confinement” so
that “[t]he cumulative effect of these failures put [him] at an unacceptable risk of
contracting COVID-19 and certainly amount to ‘extraordinary and compelling
reasons’ for this Court to grant [his motion for] compassionate release.” 	(Docket
103 at pp. 5 & 10).
In the event his motion for compassionate release is denied, Mr. Block
requests the court grant him a partial reduction in his sentence. 	Id. at p. 10.
That is, he asks the court to follow district courts from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit in reducing “sentences due to the harshness of
confinement, lack of programming and onerous lockdowns not contemplated by
the courts at sentencing.” 	Id. (citations omitted). 	In Mr. Block’s situation, he
asserts the extraordinary and compelling conditions of confinement warranting a
reduction in sentence include: “(1) lack of access to exercise/recreation; (2) lack
of access to psychology services; (3) excessive/repeated lockdowns, due to the
deliberate indifference towards [his] health and safety; (4) lack of access to law
library and grievance process.” 	Id. at p. 11.
In response, the government contends the effectiveness of the COVID-19
vaccines which mitigate the COVID-19 risk justifies denying compassionate
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

6
release. 	(Docket 118 at p. 3) (references omitted). 	Additionally, the
government asserts compassionate release should be denied because Mr. Block
recovered from COVID-19 despite his medical conditions. 	Id. at p. 4. 	The
government maintains compassionate release must be denied unless the
defendant fits within the framework of the Sentencing Commission’s guideline
policy for compassionate release. 	Id. at pp. 5-7 (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt.
n.1).
The government acknowledges Mr. Block has “chronic kidney disease and
a prior case of obesity” which “are listed in the CDC’s list of conditions that could
cause a person to become seriously ill if he contracts COVID-19.” 	Id. at p. 9
(referencing https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-
precautions/people-with-medical-condtions.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2
F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fneed-extra-precautions%
2Fgroups-at-higher-risk.html). 	Also, the government acknowledges Mr. Block
suffers from hypertension, although the government argues the CDC list
includes “pulmonary hypertension—high blood pressure in the lungs—but not
general hypertension, as placing a person at higher risk.” 	Id.
The government argues Mr. Block’s conditions were managed at FMC
Devens and following treatment his kidney disease “was . . . determined to be
stable . . . . [and] ‘steadily recovered.’ ” 	Id. at p. 11 (referencing Docket 106 at
p. 434). 	Additionally, in custody, Mr. Block’s “kidney disease would be
monitored” and his kidneys’ filtration function, glomerular filtration rate (“GFR”),
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

7
tracked. 	Id. at p. 12. 	Based on this argument, the government submits Mr.
Block failed to show “he is unable to provide self-care while in prison,” a critical
factor in demonstrating an “extraordinary or compelling reason for release.” 	Id.
Addressing the § 3553(a) factors, the government argues Mr. Block’s
“history of possession of child pornography” and “distribution of child
pornography to other individuals” produce a record that clearly shows him to
pose “a risk of danger to the community.” 	Id. at p. 14. 	These factors in the
government’s view “weigh against a sentence reduction.” 	Id. at p. 15.
In reply, Mr. Block argues “the government has ignored vaccine evading
variants such as the omicron, the emergence of the BA.2 or ‘stealth’ omicron, and
the possibility of future worse variants.” 	(Docket 119 at p. 1). 	Mr. Block
submits his “pre-existing kidney disease is a serious concern given that research
on COVID-19 has observed acute kidney damage in those who have contracted
the virus, and the effect that a preexisting kidney disease has on COVID-19
outcomes.” 	Id. at p. 5 (referencing https://www.kidney.org/coronavirus/
kidney-disease-covid-19). 	He contends the research shows that “[p]eople living
with kidney disease, at any stage, may not have as much protection against
COVID-19 — even if they are fully vaccinated.” 	Id. at p. 5. 	Because he also
developed an acute kidney injury (“AKI”) in January 2021, Mr. Block submits
“that patients who contracted COVID-19 and later an AKI continue to have low
kidney function and that the mortality rate for these patients are higher.” 	Id.
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

8
With his “history of kidney disease, COVID-19 diagnosis, and his
immunocompromised state,” Mr. Block concludes these factors “in
combination with his other health conditions—favor release.” 	Id.
Focusing on the § 3553(a) factors, Mr. Block points out that while his
offense of conviction “was serious” he “has a low criminal history, is a veteran
and has [a] strong support system in place.” 	Id. at p. 9. 	He contends the
government failed “to consider that Mr. Block recognizes his triggers and need for
help with mental health issues.” 	Id. at p. 10. 	Mr. Block concludes his
“advancing age, serious and chronic medical conditions, and his incarceration,
make him a worthy candidate for compassionate release” followed by a term “of
home confinement as a condition of supervised release.” 	Id. at p. 11.
ANALYSIS
Administrative Exhaustion
Section 3582(c) permits the district court to consider an inmate’s request
for compassionate release after he exhausts the administrative remedies
mandated by the statute. 	18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 	The government does
not contend Mr. Block failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 	(Docket
118 at p. 2). 	Accordingly, the court will address the merits of Mr. Block’s
request.
Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons
“Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) does not attempt to define the ‘extraordinary and
compelling reasons’ that might merit compassionate release.” 	United States v.
McCoy, 981 F.3d 271, 276 (4th Cir. 2020). 	That task was left to the United
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

9
States Sentencing Commission. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 994(t). 	Prior to the First Step
Act, the Sentencing Commission established four categories for “extraordinary
and compelling reasons for sentence reduction, including the criteria to be
applied and a list of specific examples.” 	See id. 	Those categories generally
focus on the defendant’s age, medical condition, family situation and any other
reasons the BOP deems to be extraordinary and compelling. 	U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
comment. n.1. 	The four categories have not been updated since December 2018
when the First Step Act became law.5
The court previously surveyed the status of the law as to a court’s
authority under the First Step Act. 	E.g., United States v. Thunder Hawk, CR.
14-50008, 2021 WL 253456, at *5 (D.S.D. Jan. 26, 2021); United States v.
Magnuson, CR. 15-50095, 2020 WL 7318109, at *4-5 (D.S.D. Dec. 11, 2020);
United States v. King, CR. 15-50050, 2020 WL 6146446, at *4-5 (D.S.D. Oct. 20,
2020). 	A summary of that survey is sufficient here.
This court retains its independent authority “to consider the full slate of
extraordinary and compelling reasons that an imprisoned person might bring
5 Until recently the United States Sentencing Commission lacked a quorum
and the newly established commission has not amended the United States
Sentencing Guidelines.
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

10
before [the court] in motions for compassionate release.”6 	E.g., Magnuson,
2020 WL 7318109, at *5 (quoting United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228, 237
(2d. Cir. 2020)); see also McCoy, 981 F.3d at 283 (“As of now, there is no
Sentencing Commission policy statement ‘applicable’ to the defendants’
compassionate-release motions, which means that district courts need not
conform, under § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s consistency requirement, to § 1B1.13 in
determining whether there exist ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for a
sentence reduction.”); United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1111 (6th Cir.
2020) (“In cases where incarcerated persons file motions for compassionate
release, federal judges . . . have full discretion to define ‘extraordinary and
compelling’ without consulting the policy statement § 1B1.13.”); and United
States v. Gunn, 980 F.3d 1178, 1180 (7th Cir. 2020) (agreeing with the Second
Circuit that the Guidelines Manual “does not curtail a district judge’s
discretion”).
6 The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had several
opportunities to address this issue but declines to do so. 	United States v.
Vangh, 990 F.3d 1138, 1141 n.3 (8th Cir. 2021); United States v. Loggins, Jr.,
966 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2020) and United States v. Rodd, 966 F.3d 740 (8th Cir.
2020). 	At best, the Eighth Circuit skirted resolving the issue by proclaiming
“the First Step Act in 2018 did not change the discretion afforded the district
court.” 	United States v. Marcussen, 15 F.4th 855, 859 (8th Cir. 2021) (internal
citation omitted). 	See also United States v. Avalos Banderas, 39 F.4th 1059,
1061 (8th Cir. 2022) (“the court did not abuse its discretion by considering
whether compassionate release would reduce [defendant’s] risk of contracting
COVID-19 or developing complications.”).
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

11
Turning to that task, the court conducted a detailed review of Mr. Block’s
medical records. 	Mr. Block’s medical records confirm the following medical
conditions:
• 	Chronic kidney disease, stage 3 unspecified. 	(Docket 106 at
p. 2);
• 	Essential (primary) hypertension (“HTN”).7 	Id.;
• 	Anemia. 	Id. at p. 5;
• 	Central serous chorioretinopathy (“CSC”). 	Id. at p. 9; and
• 	Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (“GERD”) without
esophagitis. 	Id. at p. 25.
While Mr. Block contends he had kidney disease prior to being sentenced
in this court, the PSR does not support his claim. 	See Docket 74 ¶¶ 58 & 59.
Rather, it is evident from Mr. Block’s BOP medical records that he developed
stage 3 chronic kidney disease as the result of rhabdomyolysis, progressing into
acute renal failure with tubular necrosis instigated by excessive physical
exercise, that is, 120 below the waist squats on February 12, 2021. 	(Docket 106
at pp. 21, 26, 109, 115, 193, 203, 207 & 434). 	Mr. Block’s renal failure was
rectified by multiple weeks of hemodialysis at both the Essentia Duluth Hospital
in Duluth Minnesota, and FMC Devens. 	Id. at pp. 9 and 197. 	Hemodialysis
was completed on April 28, 2021. 	Id. at p. 9. 	At the time of his initial discharge
from FMC Devens on November 18, 2021, the chart reported Mr. Block’s “kidney
7 “High blood pressure, also called hypertension, is blood pressure that is
higher than normal. . . . High blood pressure is defined as 130 or higher for the
first number, or 80 or higher for the second number.” 	https://www.
mayoclinic.org › syc-20373410 (last visited December 21, 2022).
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

12
structure and function are at their new baseline, and no further specialty care is
required.” 	Id. at p. 435. 	His medical condition was “stable and his medical
care . . . [was] lowered to a medical care level 2.” 	Id. 	He was to be transferred
back to his parent BOP facility with “[n]o restrictions” other than to “avoid
extreme exercise, exercise in heat, and volume depletion/dehydration (the
factors presumed to have caused rhabdomyolysis).” 	Id. 	Mr. Block was
instructed to continue his medication for hypertension, Amlodipine. 	Id.; see
also id. at p. 24.
Upon his return to FMC Devens in early 2022, Mr. Block was reclassified
as a “Medical Care Level 3” inmate. 	(Docket 123 at p. 2). 	It appears that one of
the principal reason for his transfer back to Devens was an “unintentional”
weight loss of 35 pounds “in the past year.” 	Id. at p. 4. 	Additionally, the
medical staff was directed to watch his essential hypertension. 	Id. 	The BOP
chart noted Mr. Block’s “last ocular injection was in January 2022, and . . . has
no record in his chart to dispute that. 	He is supposed to receive his injections
every 4-6 weeks.” 	Id. at p. 2. 	It must be noted Mr. Block refused the Moderna
COVID-19 vaccine on June 28, 2022. 	Id. at p. 45.
Chronic kidney disease and hypertension are included on the CDC’s list of
risk-increasing conditions.8 	See People with Certain Medical Conditions, Ctrs.
8 The CDC indicates adults of any age are at increased risk of severe illness
from COVID-19 if they have certain conditions, including cancer . . . heart
conditions (such as heart failure, coronary artery disease, or cardiomyopathies),
. . . . See People with Certain Medical Conditions, https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-condition
s.html (last updated December 6, 2022).
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

13
for Disease Control & Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/
2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-conditions.html (last
visited December 21, 2022). 	Regardless of age, such conditions increase the
risk of severe illness from COVID-19. 	Id. 	Additionally, it is also instructive
that CDC guidance explains “[a] person’s risk of severe illness from COVID-19
increases as the number of underlying medical conditions they have increases.”
Id.
The CDC identified factors that increase community spread of COVID-19
and individual risk, including crowded situations, enclosed spaces and close or
physical contact among people, especially for longer durations. 	See
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/
people-with-medical-conditions.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2F
www.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fcovid-data%2Finvestigations-di
scovery%2Fhospitalization-underlying-medical-conditions.html (last updated
November 29, 2022).
The court recognizes the efforts BOP has taken to prevent and mitigate
outbreaks. 	See BOP Modified Operations, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/
covid19_status.jsp (last updated November 25, 2020). 	Nevertheless, despite the
efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 in prisons, the practical reality is many of
the factors increasing community spread and individual risk of exposure to the
virus are simply unavoidable in a prison setting. 	Nor can the court ignore the
potential of infection when the risk for Mr. Block is significant. 	The new strains
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

14
and variants of COVID-19 only add to the risk and uncertainty. 	The court
recognizes the BOP’s implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination program. 	See
BOP: COVID-19 Update, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/.
It is evident Mr. Block’s treatment at FMC Devens has been successful in
treating his chronic kidney disease brought on by excessive physical exercise.
With that, Mr. Block is currently in a Care Level 3 classification. 	It is
concerning that Mr. Block is not timely receiving ocular injections prescribed to
address his vision issue.
According to the BOP Legal Resource Guide, the BOP “carefully considers
the offender’s health status” and “provides extensive medical services,” so “a
defendant’s medical condition generally will not preclude a sentence to BOP
custody.” 	https://www.bop.gov/resources/pdfs/legal_guide_march_2019.pdf,
at p. 27 (last accessed December 21, 2022). 	Each “inmate is assigned a medical
‘Care Level,’ based on his . . . medical history as described in the Presentence
Report and other available information.” 	Id. 	By implementing the care level
system, the goal “is to assign inmates with greater medical needs to those
facilities with more comprehensive on-site medical resources, and to provide
more effective and efficient access to community-based health care for each
inmate.” 	Id. 	“Inmates with Care Level 3 needs are fragile outpatients who
require frequent clinical contacts, and/or who may require some assistance with
activities of daily living, but do not require daily nursing supervision.” 	Id.
“This Care Level may include stabilization of medical or mental health conditions
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

15
that may require periodic hospitalization. 	Other examples of this Care Level are
patients with cancer in remission less than a year, advanced HIV disease, severe
mental illness in remission on medication, severe congestive heart failure, and
end-stage liver disease.” 	Id. 	For Level 3 inmates, “the medical need of the
inmate is the primary factor in the designation decision.” 	Id. 	As a medical
center, FMC Devens provides “[a]ll specialty areas of medicine . . . through
in-house staff and community-based consultant specialists. 	Additional
services provided at FMC Devens include dialysis treatment for inmates with
end-stage renal failure.” 	Id. at p. 28.
While it is true Mr. Block will not recover from his chronic medical
condition, it is evident FMC Devens is appropriately addressing the issue and
providing him with the medical care and treatment commensurate with that
condition. 	With this record, the court finds Mr. Block cannot meets his burden
of proof and presents extraordinary and compelling reasons under
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
3553(a) Factors
The court concludes the § 3553(a) factors do not support relief. 	These
factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and
characteristics of the defendant, the need to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, deter criminal
conduct, and protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, among
others. 	Id. § 3553(a)(1)-(7).
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

16
“[T]he history and characteristics of the defendant,” requires the court to
consider the defendant as a whole person. 	Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81,
113 (1996). 	Mr. Block pled guilty to count II of the indictment which charged
him with receipt of child pornography by a previous sex offender in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) & (b)(l). 	(Dockets 17, 58 ¶ C & 63-64). 	Remaining
counts of the indictment charging Mr. Block with sexual exploitation of a minor
and distribution of child pornography were dismissed as part of the plea
agreement. 	(Dockets 58 ¶ C & 99 at p. 1).
At sentencing, the court adopted Mr. Block’s presentence investigation
report without change. 	(Docket 82 at p. 1). 	Mr. Block’s crime of conviction was
his second offense for possession, receipt or distribution of child pornography.
(Docket 74 ¶ 41). 	At the time of sentencing, with a criminal history score of 37,
Mr. Block was in a criminal history category of II and the guideline imprisonment
range is 235 months to 293 months. 	Id. ¶ 77.
The court sentenced Mr. Block to a sentence of 240 months. 	(Docket 99
at p. 2). 	That sentence reflects the seriousness of his offense, provides
appropriate punishment, promotes respect for the law and “protect the public
from further crimes of the defendant.” 	18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(A), (B) & (C).
The court finds Mr. Block poses a danger to the public and he is not eligible
for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582.
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>

17
ORDER
No good cause having been proven, it is
ORDERED that defendant’s motion for compassionate release (Docket
103) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion (Docket 120) for
appointment of counsel is denied as moot.
Dated February 27, 2023.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:17-cr-50068-JLV Document 125 Filed 02/27/23 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: <pageID>