Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/hid;;1:17-cr-00487_de257> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- hid;;1:17-cr-00487_de257 RegisterActionDate "2020-04-21" @default.
- hid;;1:17-cr-00487_de257 RegisterActionDescriptionText "EO: MINUTE ORDER I.MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSELOn April 1, 2020, Defendant filed:MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL. (ECF No. 257 ).Defendant's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 257 ) is GRANTED. Cynthia A. Kagiwada, Esquire is appointed as counsel for the limited purpose of assisting Defendant in seeking compassionate release before the Bureau of Prisons and this Court.II.MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASEOn April 18, 2020, Defendant filed:MOTION TO MODIFY SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (COMPASSIONATE RELEASE). (ECF No. 258 ).A judgment of conviction that includes a sentence of imprisonment constitutes a final judgment and may not be modified by a district court except in limited circumstances. Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 824-25 (2010).On December 21, 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act of 2018. PL 115-391, December 21, 2018, 132 Stat. 5194. The First Step Act amended 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), the statute governing the limited circumstances under which the trial court may evaluate a motion for reduction of sentence. The First Step Act altered the statute in section (c)(1)(A) to allow a defendant to request the trial court for a reduction of his sentence through a motion for compassionate relief so long as the defendant exhausted his administrative requirements before the Bureau of Prisons. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The statute allows the Court to modify a defendant's sentence based on compassionate release either:(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 Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant's behalf; or,(3)Upon 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).Defendant 51748A4 seeks compassionate release based on the current COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant concedes in his Motion that he has failed to meet either the administrative exhaustion requirement or the thirty-day lapse requirement. He argues, however, that the Court has the ability to waive the exhaustion requirement. The Court disagrees.The United States Supreme Court has explained that "a statutory exhaustion provision stands on a different footing 'from judge-made exhaustion doctrines.' " Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1857 (2016). In the First Step Act of 2018, Congress amended the circumstances upon which a defendant may seek compassionate release. Congress mandated exhaustion as a requirement before a defendant is able to file a motion for compassionate release directly with the trial court. United States v. Holden, 2020 WL 1673440, *10 (D. Or. Apr. 6, 2020) (explaining that the First Step Act's exhaustion provision is mandatory). Exhaustion is not merely appropriate but it is required where Congress specifically mandates it. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992)).The Court joins multiple sister courts in the Ninth Circuit that have found that a defendant must exhaust either the administrative remedies or meet the 30-day lapse requirement before seeking compassionate release before the trial court, irrespective of the on-going COVID-19 pandemic. See United States v. Reid, 2020 WL 1904598, *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2020) (finding the court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant's motion for compassionate release because he failed to exhaust pursuant to the statute's requirements); United States v. Allison, 2020 WL 1904047, *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 17, 2020) (collecting cases); see also United States v. Garza, 2020 WL 1485782, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2020).The administrative exhaustion provision of the First Step Act of 2018 is mandatory and this Court does not have the authority to excuse an inmate's failure to comply with the exhaustion requirement. United States v. Simmons, 2020 WL 1903281, *2 (D. Or. Apr. 17, 2020).Defendant's MOTION TO MODIFY SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (COMPASSIONATE RELEASE) (ECF No. 258 ) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant may file a new motion upon meeting the statutory exhaustion requirements. SO ORDERED by (JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR)(il, ) (Entered: 04/21/2020)" @default.
- hid;;1:17-cr-00487_de257 AdministrativeID "259" @default.
- hid;;1:17-cr-00487_de257 hasJudgeReference SJ001311 @default.
- hid;;1:17-cr-00487_de257 hasReferenceToOtherEntry hid;;1:17-cr-00487_de255 @default.
- hid;;1:17-cr-00487_de257 hasReferenceToOtherEntry hid;;1:17-cr-00487_de256 @default.