USA v. Mapp et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
-against-
KEVIN MOORE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Case No. 1:95-cr-01162-FB-2
Appearances:
For the Government:
SAMANTHA ALESSI
Assistant United States Attorney
271 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 1120
For the Defendant:
KEVIN MOORE, pro se
46077-053
Federal Correctional Institution
Otisville
P.O. Box 1000
Otisville, NY 10963
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Defendant Kevin Moore moves for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A). For the following reasons, Moore’s motion is DENIED.
Moore was a member of a robbery crew that targeted bank patrons as they
waited in line to make deposits. United States v. Mapp, 170 F.3d 328, 331 (2d Cir.
1999). In November 1991, Moore, co-defendant John Mapp, and others planned
and executed a robbery. Id. at 332. They robbed Theodore Severides while he was
waiting in line at a bank to make a deposit. Id. Moore approached Severides from
behind, grabbed his bag, and when Severides turned around, Moore shot and killed
Case 1:95-cr-01162-FB Document 188 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
him. Id. Moore later admitted to his crew that he had not intended to shoot
Severides, but that if the crew continued to commit robberies, “that was going to
happen eventually.” Id. Of further note, Moore committed this robbery and murder
after absconding from a work release program he had been participating in
following a different robbery. Sentencing Tr., 21:12, May 14, 1997.
Following trial, Moore was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit
Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and one count of murder in
aid of racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959. The Court sentenced Moore
to life imprisonment. Dkt. No. 118.
On October 29, 2020, Moore filed a pro se motion for compassionate
release. He argued that he was entitled to relief for two reasons: (1) he suffered
from illnesses and health conditions, including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity,
that put him at elevated risk of COVID-19; and (2) he had substantially
rehabilitated himself, including by completing various educational programs, such
as victim impact workshops and classes and mental health programs.
This Court denied his motion in a November 30, 2020 electronic order,
explaining
The Court has reviewed the parties’ submissions and considered all
their arguments. Upon due consideration, the Court has determined that
there are no extraordinary or compelling reasons that permit Defendant
Kevin Moore’s release at this time. In the alternative, the Section
3553(a) factors do not support releasing a defendant who committed
murder while on work-release from a prior term of incarceration.
Case 1:95-cr-01162-FB Document 188 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Having now served over 28 years of his life sentence, Moore, proceeding
pro se, again moves for compassionate release. He offers four grounds that he
contends constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting
compassionate release. The Court addresses each in turn, concluding that none
suffice.
First, Moore contends that his family circumstances justify a sentence
reduction; specifically, because his aging mother requires his care. U.S.S.G. §
1B1.13(b)(3) provides that the “incapacitation of the defendant’s parent when the
defendant would be the only available caregiver for the parent” can constitute an
extraordinary and compelling reason. However, as Moore himself acknowledges,
he has a sister who is able to care for their mother. Although Moore posits that she
cannot provide all the daily care his mother requires because the sister lives in
Brooklyn and the mother lives in Queens, this alone does not constitute an
extraordinary and compelling reason because Moore would not be the “only
available caregiver.” Id. (emphasis added).
Second, Moore contends that his diabetes, hypertension, and obesity, along
with his advancing age (he was 59 when he made the motion) constitute
extraordinary and compelling reasons. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1) provides that a
terminal illness or serious medical condition can provide a basis for compassionate
release. None of his conditions, however, rise to the serious level envisioned by the
Case 1:95-cr-01162-FB Document 188 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Guidelines. There is no indication that he suffers from a terminal illness, that his
medical conditions cannot be managed effectively in prison, or that his ability to
care for himself has been substantially diminished as a result of his medical issues.
See id. Accordingly, Moore’s medical conditions do not present any extraordinary
and compelling reasons justifying compassionate release.
Third, Moore argues that a sentencing disparity between himself and his co-
defendant Mapp supports a sentence reduction. It is true that the Court granted
Mapp’s motion for compassionate release. United States v. Mapp, 467 F. Supp. 3d
63, 64 (E.D.N.Y. 2020). However, Mapp and Moore’s circumstances are
distinguishable for the following reasons: (1) Mapp was not convicted of murder;
(2) Mapp was sentenced to 450 months’ imprisonment (of which he had served 312
months at the time of his motion), rather than life; and (3) Mapp was a few years
shy of eligibility for release to a halfway house, whereas no such eligibility is
forthcoming for Moore. Because of the differences in culpability and sentence
length between Moore and Mapp, the fact that Mapp was granted compassionate
release does not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason to also grant
compassionate release to Moore.
Fourth, Moore contends that his substantial rehabilitation justifies a
reduction in sentence. He again highlights the programs he has completed. Moore
now also serves as an instructor for the Department of Labor sponsored “Roots of
Case 1:95-cr-01162-FB Document 188 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Success” program, where he mentors and teaches other inmates. The Court
commends Moore for his efforts. It is admirable that Moore is using his life
sentence to try to help other inmates. However, rehabilitation alone cannot
constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason, and Moore has not produced
any other extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying relief. 28 U.S.C. §
994(t); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(d).
For the foregoing reasons, Moore has not established any extraordinary and
compelling reasons justifying a sentence reduction. Moore’s motion is therefore
denied.
SO ORDERED.
_/S/ Frederic Block__________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
February 13, 2026
Case 1:95-cr-01162-FB Document 188 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>