Criminal- Drug conspiracy defendant’s compassionate release motion is denied

Where the drug conspiracy defendant moved for compassionate release, but he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction, his motion was denied.

Background

On July 17, 2012, Jose Fredy Delcid pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. On Nov. 30, 2012, he was sentenced to a term of 240 months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. On May 29, 2015, this court granted a motion by defendant to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Defendant’s sentence was reduced from 240 months to 210 months.

Defendant has now filed a motion for compassionate release. Defendant claims that he has presented several extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction: (1) he is suffering from both a medical condition and the aging process in a way that diminishes his ability to take care of himself; (2) he is not being provided adequate medical care; (3) there is an ongoing outbreak of an infectious disease at his facility that puts him at serious risk; (4) he received an unusually long sentence and (5) the catch all provision applies.

Exhaustion

Defendant submitted a request for compassionate release to the Bureau of Prisons, which the warden denied on Aug. 29, 2024. Defendant therefore properly exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing this motion.

Health concerns

Defendant has not met his burden to show that his health issues warrant relief, especially when his medical records demonstrate that he has received medical attention, accommodations and mental health care for his chronic conditions. While the court does not minimize the seriousness of defendant’s chronic conditions, his medical records demonstrate that he has received regular and effective medical attention for these illnesses.

Defendant was in good enough health to work in food service and as a safety recycler without restrictions. His medical duty status report indicates no physical limitations or restrictions. This, combined with the evidence of treatment of his chronic conditions, show that defendant is not “at risk of serious deterioration in [his] health or death” based on the medical care he is receiving from the Bureau of Prisons.

Further, defendant has not established that Bureau of Prisons cannot adequately manage his medical needs. Accordingly, the court does not find that defendant’s health concerns constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for release.

Covid-19

For claims resting on risks posed by the Covid-19 pandemic, the court may find “extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release when an inmate shows both a particularized susceptibility to the disease and a particularized risk of contracting the disease at his prison facility.” Defendant fails to satisfy either of these prongs.

Long sentence

The court may consider whether a change in law presents an extraordinary and compelling reason for defendant’s release. But this consideration only applies if that change in law “would produce a gross disparity between the sentence being served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed” Here, defendant put forth no evidence that he received an “unusually” long sentence, or that any change in law that would create a “gross disparity” between the sentence he is serving and the sentence that would be imposed at the time his motion was filed.

Catch-all

Defendant also raises two other arguments: an allegation of understaffing in the Bureau of Prisons, and evidence of defendant’s rehabilitation since incarceration. Neither of these arguments rise to the level of an “extraordinary and compelling” circumstance.

Defendant’s allegations of understaffing are generic and fail to specify how any alleged staffing shortage has impacted him. These general allegations do not provide any basis for the court to reduce defendant’s sentence. Regarding defendant’s rehabilitation, while the court commends defendant on his efforts to rehabilitate himself while he has been incarcerated, the guidelines provide that “rehabilitation of the defendant is not, by itself, an extraordinary and compelling reason[.]”

Defendant’s motion for compassionate release denied.

United States v. Delcid, Case No. 1:12-cr-320, April 23, 2026. EDVA at Alexandria (Nachmanoff). VLW 026-3-190. 10 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-190
Virginia Lawyers Weekly