Massachusetts Cases June 26, 2020: United States v. Hardy

Case Description

David G. Tobin, United States Attorneys Office, Boston, MA, for United States of America.

Paul J. Davenport, Jeruchim & Davenport, LLP, Boston, MA, for James Hardy.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR REDUCTION OF SENTENCE

STEARNS, D.J.

[470 F.Supp.3d 62]

The authority of a trial court to reduce the sentence of a committed prisoner, unlike in the case of a pretrial detainee, is tightly circumscribed. A sentence once imposed may not be modified except to the extent permitted by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). However, there is a recently enacted exception. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court, on the motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons or a defendant who has exhausted his prescribed administrative rights, may order a compassionate reduction of sentence: (1) on a finding of "extraordinary and compelling reasons"; or (2) on findings that apply to mostly elderly long-term inmates suffering from terminal or self-debilitating illnesses and who, as a result, are no longer deemed a danger to the safety of any person or the community. Hardy, who is in his mid-50s and has served less than half of his committed sentence, does not fit the eligibility criteria that apply to the second statutory category of inmate.

In his renewed motion, Hardy asks that his cumulative 66-month committed sentence be reduced to house arrest because of the threat of infection posed by the COVID-19 virus in a prison setting. Although Hardy claims to be at medical risk, most of his ailments are not uncommon for someone his age and prior lifestyle. His complaints include hypertension , gastro-esophageal reflux disease , sleep apnea , and (more concerning) diabetes and asthma . The gravamen of his complaint is that conditions at FCI Fort Dix where he is confined make it difficult for him to avoid persons who may become infected, to maintain social distancing, and to properly clean the C-PAP machine that he uses for his apnea. While these are understandable concerns, they are not "extraordinary and compelling."

Second, I find the release plan put forward by Hardy's counsel to be too thinly sketched for the court to properly evaluate. Hardy proposes to live with, and be supervised by, an aunt at an undisclosed location, presumably in the Boston area – that is the extent of the plan. The court

[470 F.Supp.3d 63]

has no assurances that Hardy's release would not literally return him to the scene of his many crimes or to a setting in which medical services comparable to those to which he has access at Fort Dix would no longer be available.

While I am as concerned as any judge with the impact of COVID-19 on the prison population, unless society is to make the decision that all prisoners should be released because of the pandemic, there must be a means of differentiating those eligible for release from those who are not. In setting the conditions that justify compassionate release, Congress made its best effort to provide judges with the tools they need to make these difficult and, at times, heart-wrenching decisions. Hardy does not meet any of mandated eligibility criteria and, therefore, is not a candidate for compassionate release.

Because I can foresee no circumstances under which Hardy could be deemed eligible at present for compassionate release, I also see no reason for a hearing on the matter.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for an Emergency Reduction of Sentence is DENIED .

SO ORDERED.