USA v. Ramirez Cagua et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
YESENIA MELENDEZ RINCON
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:24-CR-149(KAD)-6
October 7, 2026
ORDER DENYING (ECF No. 266) MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
Kari A. Dooley, United States District Judge:
Defendant, Yesenia Melendez Rincon, has moved pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
for an order of compassionate release from confinement in light of her serious but currently unmet
medical needs.1 	She seeks to return to Florida where she can be seen and treated by her prior
oncologist, who successfully treated her for cervical cancer. The Government objects insofar as
Defendant’s medical records from the Bureau of Prisons belie any claim that she is not receiving
treatment and indeed, she refused medical care when offered the opportunity to see an outside
specialist. 	The Government also informs the Court that Defendant is subject to a detainer by
immigration authorities and thus early release would only result in a transfer into Immigration and
Custom Enforcement (ICE) custody. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Discussion
A court may modify a term of imprisonment on compassionate release grounds in two
circumstances: (1) upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or (2) upon motion of the
defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the
1 In rendering this decision, the Court necessarily cites to sealed documents. 	Because the cited documents are
significant to the Court’s ultimate ruling on this dispositive motion, to the extent otherwise sealed information is
included in the decision, it is sua sponte unsealed.
Case 3:24-cr-00149-KAD Document 299 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 7

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. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Ms. Melendez Rincon has exhausted her administrative remedies.
Upon exhaustion of a defendant’s administrative remedies, § 3582(c)(1)(A) provides that
a district court “may reduce” a defendant’s term of imprisonment “after considering the factors set
forth in section 3553(a),” if it finds “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. § 3582(c)(1)(a).
The term “extraordinary” means “most unusual,” “far from common,” or “having
little or no precedent.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 807 (1976);
see 5 Oxford English Dictionary 614 (2d ed. 1989) (“[o]ut of the usual or regular
course or order”). 	“Compelling,” meanwhile, means “tending to convince or
convert by or as if by forcefulness of evidence.” Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary, 	at 	463; 	see 3 	Oxford 	English 	Dictionary, 	at 	600 	(“irresistible;
demanding attention, respect”). Putting these definitions together, “extraordinary
and compelling” reasons for compassionate release are those that are especially
unusual and convincing.
Rutherford v. United States, 146 S. Ct. 1320, 1330 (2026). Serious medical conditions are often
the basis for granting compassionate release. See e.g., United States v. Bang, No. 19-CR-213-2
(LJL), 2024 WL 1051582, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2024) (collecting cases); see also U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13(b)(1) (outlining serious medical conditions that amount to extraordinary and compelling
reasons for a reduced sentence). Further, a district court’s “reasonable evaluation of the Section
3553(a) factors is an alternative and independent basis for denial of compassionate release.”
United States v. Jones, 17 F.4th 371, 374 (2d Cir. 2021).
Ms. Melendez Rincon was a member of a sophisticated international burglary ring that
targeted jewelry stores across the country. She had different roles in these burglaries. She might
“case” a jewelry store before the burglary or perhaps she would serve as a lookout during the
Case 3:24-cr-00149-KAD Document 299 Filed 10/07/26 Page 2 of 7

burglary. On at least one occasion she accompanied the crew to the fence where the stolen jewelry
was sold. While Ms. Melendez Rincon was not responsible for organizing or directing the crew
of burglars, nor was she a minor participant. Ms. Melendez Rincon received a below guidelines
sentence of 24 months on September 24, 2025.
Ms. Melendez Rincon now seeks compassionate release on the grounds that she is not
receiving necessary medical treatment. She recounts, as was known at sentencing, that she was
previously treated for cervical cancer in Florida with radiation and chemotherapy. This condition
should be monitored. 	In December 2025, following her sentencing, Ms. Melendez Rincon
underwent medical imaging in Rhode Island. As a result, a biopsy was recommended. The biopsy
revealed a lesion with a recommendation for a surgical consultation. 	The biopsy was also
“negative for atypia or malignancy” in the left breast upper quadrant and “negative for carcinoma”
in the lymph node. Another location of concern was revealed as “fibroadenoma.” Also during this
time, Ms. Melendez Rincon alleges she experienced pain in her breast, dizziness, vomiting, and
rectal bleeding. 	“To date, Yesenia has not been treated and has not been allowed to see a
specialist.” ECF No. 266 at 2. Indeed, Ms. Melendez Rincon asserts in her motion that as of April
27, 2026, “she has not been seen by any doctor, not even a gynecologist.” Id. She further asserts
that the BOP is not equipped to provide her with chemotherapy, radiation therapy and potential
surgery “to prevent cancer from developing.” Id.
Ms. Melendez Rincon argues first that her serious and unmet medical needs, the risk of her
cervical cancer recurring, and the possibility that she has breast cancer, establish extraordinary and
compelling reasons justifying a reduction in sentence. She further asserts that consideration of the
statutory factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) does not counsel otherwise.
Case 3:24-cr-00149-KAD Document 299 Filed 10/07/26 Page 3 of 7

In opposition, the Government attaches 83 pages of Ms. Melendez Rincon’s medical
records from the BOP. First, her assertion to her lawyer that she had not seen a doctor as of April
27, 2026, is simply not true. Upon a complaint of left breast pain, abdominal pain and blood in
her stool, Ms. Melendez Rincon was seen by a doctor on April 3, 2026. The doctor ordered both
a mammogram on an urgent basis; an oncology consultation on an urgent basis as well as a number
of tests, x-rays and an EKG. 	She was seen again on April 9, 2026, when she complained of
continued pain. The medical notes reflect that her “recent lab work indicates no abnormalities.”
And her weight was noted as stable. A radiologist found her x-rays were normal. As detailed in
the Government’s opposition, and in the medical records,
The inmate’s labs from about 20 days ago or completely normal essentially
completely normal and they include the CBC, CMP, TSH, HgbAIC and urine
analysis. Her weight has also been stable over the last two to three weeks.
I also reviewed her records from the oncologist, and she did not have uterine cancer
she had cervical cancer that was treated with both chemotherapy and radiation
therapy. At her last visit to the doctor in September of 2025 with review of CT scan
with contrast 8/2025 showed no evidence of any recurrence. She was tearful about
returning to Colombia at the visit in September 2025.
Her normal stool color and consistency and normal physical rectal exam of
4/3/2026, stable weight and normal lab work are reassuring. The symptoms of
numbness of the hands, foot spasm are highly suggestive of anxiety. And the
abdominal pain could certainly be from anxiety. This type of cancer does not
believe metastasize of the breast. So it’s unlikely that her complaints or worries
about breast masses are due to squamous cell cervical cancer. At this point urgent
GI, oncology and mammogram consults have been placed and there’s not much
more we can really do. It appears the gold standard for surveillance is FDG-PET/CT
also maybe MRI.
On April 29, 2026, the doctor put in an urgent request for a PET/CT scan for cervical cancer and
reported same to Ms. Melendez Rincon. 	The medical records also reveal that Ms. Melendez
Rincon was scheduled to see an oncology specialist in the community to monitor for any
recurrence of her cervical cancer. 	The records also indicate that she refused to attend the
Case 3:24-cr-00149-KAD Document 299 Filed 10/07/26 Page 4 of 7

appointment and signed and dated a form which revealed that she was advised of the purpose of
the appointment and the risks of her refusal. The form was witnessed by two BOP employees.
The records do not, unfortunately, reveal whether Ms. Melendez Rincon offered any reason for her
refusal and the record is otherwise silent on the issue.
Finally, upon a subsequent report of pain in her breasts, Ms. Melendez Rincon was seen by
the same doctor on June 25, 2026, and again on July 24, 2026, upon a complaint of blood in her
urine. The Government further points out, and the records reveal, that despite her allegations in
the instant motion, there is no indication that Ms. Melendez Rincon has made any complaints of
dizziness or vomiting to the medical staff in the BOP. And she further told BOP personnel that her
prior biopsy showed precancerous lesions and that she was told she needed a mastectomy.
Ms. Melendez Rincon also refers to her “malignancy” in her request to the warden seeking
compassionate release. But the biopsy results she attaches to her motion, (and which are part of
the BOP file) though recommending additional evaluation and surgical consultation, were negative
for the presence of cancer.
Ms. Melendez Rincon’s Reply is to criticize the BOP for not acting swiftly enough; to
question any assessment that she does not have breast cancer; and to dismiss these records as
inaccurate to the extent they reflect a refusal of treatment.2 Counsel speculates that Ms. Melendez
Rincon did not understand the form when she signed it because it is in English and she does not
speak English and further that it “defies logic” that she would refuse to see an oncologist. But the
medical records are replete with Ms. Melendez Rincon’s complaints of pain and other maladies.
2 Ms. Melendez Rincon does not, however, address the inaccurate assertion in her motion that she had not been seen
by any doctor as of April 27, 2026 .
Case 3:24-cr-00149-KAD Document 299 Filed 10/07/26 Page 5 of 7

She is obviously able to communicate effectively, in some fashion, with medical staff and there is
no non-speculative basis upon which to question the validity of the BOP record.
In short, Ms. Melendez Rincon has not demonstrated that she is in need of care that the
BOP is unable or unwilling to provide. Her medical chart makes clear that the BOP has responded
and continues to respond to her complaints with both testing and treatment. When they arranged
for an appropriate outside cancer specialist to monitor for cervical cancer, she declined treatment.
Ms. Melendez Rincon’s motion is premised on the possibility that she has a more serious condition
than has been heretofore diagnosed. 	But she eschewed efforts by the BOP to assess just that.
Ms. Melendez 	Rincon 	has 	not 	demonstrated 	an 	extraordinary 	or 	compelling 	reason 	for
compassionate release.3
Further, and independently, assessment of the Section 3553(a) factors does not counsel a
reduction in sentence. 	Ms. Melendez Rincon was involved in at least four of many burglaries
across the country which targeted jewelry stores. 	She participated with a highly sophisticated
international burglary ring, operating principally out of Columbia. The losses were significant and
the victim impact beyond just the dollar losses cannot be overstated. Many of the victims were
uninsured or underinsured. The burglaries took an outsized emotional toll on the victims who had
spent years building their businesses only to have it devastated by the burglary. At sentencing,
when varying downward from the applicable guideline range, the Court considered Ms. Melendez
Rincon’s health and strong family support system as mitigating factors. The Court also considered
the concept of incremental punishment as was implicated in her case. But reducing Ms. Melendez
3 It is also notable that Ms. Melendez Rincon’s release plan to re-connect with her treating oncologist is not viable as
an ICE detainer has been lodged with the BOP. As a result, there is no benefit to be had in this regard. Nor is there
any basis to conclude that ICE officials will or can provide swifter and more comprehensive treatment than
Ms. Melendez Rincon is receiving in the BOP. Aside from the dubious nature of this proposition, that she is willing
to proceed in hope of receiving such treatment is not a basis upon which compassionate release would be warranted.
Case 3:24-cr-00149-KAD Document 299 Filed 10/07/26 Page 6 of 7

Rincon’s sentence to one of time served would significantly undermine the purposes of general
deterrence and promoting respect for the law. 	Nor can the Court, on this record, conclude that
there is no longer a need for specific deterrence.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for compassionate release is DENIED.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 7th day of October 2026.
/s/ Kari A. Dooley
KARI A. DOOLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cr-00149-KAD Document 299 Filed 10/07/26 Page 7 of 7