USA v. SANS et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PAUL SANS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket no. 2:12-cr-00030-GZS
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
(COMPASSIONATE RELEASE)
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release (ECF No. 212).
Having reviewed this Motion, along with the Government’s Response (ECF No. 213), the Court
DENIES Defendant’s Motion.
The Court has denied Defendant’s requests for compassionate release on three previous
occasions, most recently in January 2022. 	(See 6/23/20 Endorsement Order (ECF No. 200),
1/22/21 Order on Pending Motions (ECF No. 203) & 1/25/22 Order on Pending Motions (ECF
No. 211).) In the January 2022 Order, the Court determined that Mr. Sans had not exhausted his
administrative remedies. 	(See 1/25/22 Order, PageID # 689.) 	Because the Government did not
waive this issue, the Court denied Defendant’s motion without prejudice. (Id.) The Court further
observed, however, that even if Defendant cured this deficiency, his request would fail on the
merits. (Id., PageID #s 689–90.) Specifically, Defendant had not established “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), nor did the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support his release. (Id.) Additionally, the Court noted that
to the extent Defendant raised arguments related to his career-offender designation, such
Case 2:12-cr-00030-JAW Document 214 Filed 06/13/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
arguments 	were 	not 	properly 	addressed 	in 	the 	context 	of 	compassionate 	release. 	(Id.,
PageID # 690 n.4.)
Defendant’s current Motion is brief, running less than half a page. (See Def. Mot. (ECF
No. 212), PageID # 692.) 	He asserts that he is no longer a career offender due to intervening
changes in the law. (Id.) He also contends that he has served 80% of his sentence and is not a
danger to the community. 	(Id.) 	In its Response, the Government again declines to waive
Defendant’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies and otherwise asserts that the reasoning
of the January 2022 Order remains sound. (Gov. Response (ECF No. 213), PageID # 694.)
Put simply, the Court has not found sufficient grounds to disturb its previous decision.
Because Mr. Sans has not indicated he has cured the exhaustion issue, nor has the Government
waived it, the Court must deny Defendant’s Motion without prejudice for the same reasons stated
in the January 2022 Order. Additionally, the Court finds that Mr. Sans has not identified any issue
that would lead the Court to reconsider its conclusions concerning the merits. Insofar as Mr. Sans
again challenges his career-offender designation, the Court reiterates that this argument is not
properly addressed in the context of compassionate release.1 See United States v. Fine, 982 F.3d
1117, 1118–19 (8th Cir. 2020).
Therefore, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 212).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 13th day of June, 2022.
1 Once again, the Court notes that Defendant has an application pending before the First Circuit for permission to
pursue a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Sans v. United States, 1st Cir. 21-2018. The Court continues
to express no opinion on the merits of any argument that Defendant might raise via a successive petition.
Case 2:12-cr-00030-JAW Document 214 Filed 06/13/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>