Oregon Cases August 12, 2021: United States v. Wood

Case Description

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before me on Defendant James Lee Wood's Motion to Reduce Sentence [ECF 122]. Specifically, Mr. Wood moves the court, for a second time, for compassionate release or a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Mot. to Reduce Sentence [ECF 122] at 1. For the following reasons, I DENY the motion.

DISCUSSION

Compassionate release is a statutory exception to the rule that a court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). Upon a proper motion, the court may reduce a term of imprisonment if, after considering applicable factors set forth in § 3553(a), the court finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and the reduction is “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A defendant must exhaust administrative remedies before moving the court for compassionate release. Id. The Government acknowledges that Mr. Wood “says he has exhausted his administrative remedies” but otherwise argues that “he has failed to show that compassionate release is warranted.” Gov't Resp. [ECF 124] at 2.

Mr. Wood argues that he is an appropriate candidate for a sentence reduction given the abnormally difficult conditions of confinement imposed by COVID-19, including the restrictions on visitation, lack of programming options, and struggles with his mental health. Mot. to Reduce Sentence [ECF 122] at 2-3. The Government argues that his conditions do not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason that warrants a sentence reduction. Gov't Resp. [ECF 124] at 2-3. The Government reasons that the lack of programming options and the mental health issues Mr. Wood complains of are insufficient to rise to the level of “extraordinary and compelling.” Id. at 3. Moreover, the Government accurately points out that I already considered the impact of COVID-19 on conditions of confinement at Mr. Wood's sentencing and, as a result, imposed a below-guideline sentence. Id. at 3-4.

I agree with the Government. Although I am sympathetic to the challenging circumstances Mr. Wood has endured over the past year and a half, I have already considered those circumstances at his sentencing. Accordingly, I find that relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) is inappropriate.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Wood's Motion to Reduce Sentence [ECF 122] is DENIED. Mr. Wood's Motion to Appoint Counsel [ECF 126] is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

At this time, however, “the Sentencing Commission has not yet issued a policy statement ‘applicable' to § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant.” United States v. Aruda , 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

---------