Oregon Cases September 22, 2021: United States v. Jackson

Case Description

1

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL W.MOSMAN, United States District Judge

This matter comes before me on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Defendant James Albert Jackson's Second Motion for Compassionate Release [ECF 371]. Specifically, Mr. Jackson moves the court for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 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

2

Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A defendant must exhaust administrative remedies before moving the court for compassionate release. Id. Mr. Jackson provides no indication that he has exhausted his administrative remedies as required by statute, but the Government does not raise the issue of Mr. Jackson's failure to exhaust. Gov't Resp. [ECF 406] at 5. Thus, I consider that argument waived.

Mr. Jackson argues that he is an appropriate candidate for compassionate release because he has kidney disease, high blood pressure, and asthma in addition to being forty-nine years old. Mot. for Reconsideration [ECF 402] at 3. He states that these factors make him a “very high risk” to recontract COVID-19. Id . The Government argues that his conditions do not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason that warrants compassionate release. Gov't Resp. [ECF 406] at 6. The Government points out that Mr. Jackson has previously been infected with and recovered from COVID-19, he has received the COVID-19 vaccination, and his asthma and kidney disease are moderate and manageable. Id. at 6-8.

I agree with the Government. The vaccine that Mr. Jackson received has so far proven to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death. See When You've Been Fully Vaccinated , CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html (last updated Sept. 16, 2021) (“COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing COVID-19 disease, especially severe illness and death.”) (“COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective against severe disease and death from variants of the virus that causes COVID-19 currently

3

circulating in the United States, including the Delta variant.”) Additionally, Mr. Jackson is incarcerated at FCI Otisville, which is currently reporting zero active COVID-19 cases among inmates. COVID-19 Update, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, https://www.bop.gov/coronavirus/ (last updated September 19, 2021) (click “Full breakdown and additional details . . ” under “COVID-19 Cases”). Accordingly, I find that relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) is inappropriate.

Separately, the applicable 18. U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors cut against Mr. Jackson's release even if he had established extraordinary and compelling reasons for release due to COVID-19, which he has failed to do. Mr. Jackson has a history of committing serious violent crimes, including the instant offense, sex trafficking a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and (b)(1), for which he is serving a forty-year sentence. J. & Commitment [ECF 292] at 1-2. I remain unconvinced that Defendant would not pose a danger to the community.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, I DENY Mr. Jackson's Second Motion for Compassionate Release [ECF 371].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

---------

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).

I agree with the Sixth Circuit's recent holding that the compassionate release exhaustion requirement is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule that can be waived. United States v. Alam , 960 F.3d 831, 833 (6th Cir. 2020).

---------