USA v. Butler et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
United States of America, )
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
) MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE
vs. )
)
James Dean Odeneal, ) Case No. 4:12-cr-177
)
Defendant. )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the Court is Defendant James Dean Odeneal’s motion to reduce sentence under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), filed on July 11, 2022. See Doc. No. 299. The Government filed a response
in opposition to the motion on July 21, 2022. See Doc. No. 304. For the reasons set forth below, the
motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Odeneal was charged in a three-count Indictment with kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 120(a)(1) and (2) (Count One); conspiracy to commit kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(c)
(Count Two); and conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count Three). See Doc. No. 75. Odeneal pled guilty to the charge of
kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 120(a)(1) and (2) (Count One). See Doc. No. 130. He was
sentenced to 144 months of imprisonment on July 22, 2013. See Doc. No. 175. No appeal was taken.
On July 11, 2022, Odeneal filed the instant motion to reduce sentence citing his mental health
problems as extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying release. See Doc. No. 299. The
Government contends a reduction of Odeneal’s sentence is not warranted because he has not
demonstrated an extraordinary or compelling reason and the Section 3553(a) factors weigh against
1
Case 4:12-cr-00177-DLH Document 305 Filed 09/12/22 Page 1 of 7

release. Odeneal is incarcerated at USP Allenwood in Allenwood, Pennsylvania. Odeneal now age
32, has a projected release date of June 7, 2029. The projected release date reflects both the 144
month sentence imposed by this Court and a consecutive 80 month sentence imposed by the District
of West Virginia on a charge of voluntary manslaughter related to Odeneal killing his cellmate while
in federal custody. See Doc. No. 304-2.
II. LEGAL DISCUSSION
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) allows the Court to modify a term of imprisonment under two
circumstances: by motion of the Director of the BOP or 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 the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by
the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier.” It is undisputed the Defendant has
exhausted his administrative remedies.
In considering a motion to reduce sentence, the Court must assess whether, after considering
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, “extraordinary and compelling reasons” exist which warrant a
sentence reduction, and if a sentence reduction is consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s
applicable policy statement. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). There is no right to counsel in Section
3582(c) proceedings. United States v. Brown, 565 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir. 2009). Nor is there a
right to a hearing. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827-28 (2010) (observing that, under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(b)(4), a defendant need not be present at a proceeding under
Section 3582(c)(2) regarding the imposition of a sentencing modification). It should also be noted
that the CARES Act does not provide the Court with any expanded authority to grant a motion to
reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). See CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat 281
2
Case 4:12-cr-00177-DLH Document 305 Filed 09/12/22 Page 2 of 7

(2020).
Prior to the passage of the First Step Act in 2018, district courts could only grant
compassionate release sentence reductions based upon a motion filed by the director of the BOP.
Such motions were rarely filed. This all changed when the President signed the First Step Act into
law on December 21, 2018. The relevant portion of the new law now reads as follows:
(c) Modification of an imposed term of imprisonment.--The court may not modify
a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that–
(1) in any case–
(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or 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 the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of
such a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier,
may reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or
supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the
unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the
factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it
finds that–
(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction;
and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission;
18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(I) (emphasis added).
Unfortunately, the First Step Act does not define “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” The
Sentencing Commission’s policy statement can be found at Section 1B1.13 of the 2021 Sentencing
Guidelines Manual. The policy statement requires a finding that a claimant meets three requirements:
1) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction; 2) the defendant is not a danger to the
community; and 3) the reduction follows the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement. USSG §
1B1.13. However, the policy statement pertains to the old law rather than the new law and thus is of
3
Case 4:12-cr-00177-DLH Document 305 Filed 09/12/22 Page 3 of 7

questionable applicability. See United States v. Beck, No. 1:13-CR-186-6, 2019 WL 2716505, at *6
(M.D.N.C. June 28, 2019) (concluding the old policy statement provides helpful guidance but does
not control the district court’s independent assessment of whether “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” warrant a sentence reduction.). This Court agrees that the Sentencing Commission’s existing
policy statement provides only limited guidance. See United States v. Fox, No. 2:14-CR-03, 2019
WL 3046086, at *3 (D. Me. July 11, 2019).
The Application Note to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 provides as follows:
1. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.--Provided the defendant meets the
requirements of subdivision (2), extraordinary and compelling reasons exist
under any of the circumstances set forth below:
(A) Medical Condition of the Defendant.--
(i) The defendant is suffering from a terminal illness (i.e., a
serious and advanced illness with an end of life trajectory). A
specific prognosis of life expectancy (i.e., a probability of
death within a specific time period) is not required. Examples
include metastatic solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced
dementia.
(ii) The defendant is–
(I) suffering from a serious physical or medical condition,
(II) suffering from a serious functional or cognitive
impairment, or
(III) experiencing deteriorating physical or mental health
because of the aging process,
that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to
provide self-care within the environment of a correctional
facility and from which he or she is not expected to recover.
(B) Age of the Defendant.--The defendant (i) is at least 65 years old; (ii)
is experiencing a serious deterioration in physical or mental health
because of the aging process; and (iii) has served at least 10 years or
4
Case 4:12-cr-00177-DLH Document 305 Filed 09/12/22 Page 4 of 7

75 percent of his or her term of imprisonment, whichever is less.
(C) Family Circumstances.--
(i) The death or incapacitation of the caregiver of the
defendant's minor child or minor children.
(ii) The incapacitation of the defendant's spouse or
registered partner when the defendant would be the
only available caregiver for the spouse or registered
partner.
(D) Other Reasons.--As determined by the Director of the Bureau of
Prisons, there exists in the defendant's case an extraordinary and
compelling reason other than, or in combination with, the reasons
described in subdivisions (A) through (C).
2. Foreseeability of Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons.--For purposes
of this policy statement, an extraordinary and compelling reason need not have
been unforeseen at the time of sentencing in order to warrant a reduction in the
term of imprisonment. Therefore, the fact that an extraordinary and compelling
reason reasonably could have been known or anticipated by the sentencing
court does not preclude consideration for a reduction under this policy
statement.
3. Rehabilitation of the Defendant.--Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 994(t),
rehabilitation of the defendant is not, by itself, an extraordinary and
compelling reason for purposes of this policy statement.
4. Motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.--A reduction under this
policy statement may be granted only upon motion by the Director of the
Bureau of Prisons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The Commission
encourages the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to file such a motion if the
defendant meets any of the circumstances set forth in Application Note 1. The
court is in a unique position to determine whether the circumstances warrant
a reduction (and, if so, the amount of reduction), after considering the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the criteria set forth in this policy
statement, such as the defendant's medical condition, the defendant's family
circumstances, and whether the defendant is a danger to the safety of any other
person or to the community.
This policy statement shall not be construed to confer upon the defendant any
right not otherwise recognized in law.
5. Application of Subdivision (3).--Any reduction made pursuant to a motion
5
Case 4:12-cr-00177-DLH Document 305 Filed 09/12/22 Page 5 of 7

by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons for the reasons set forth in
subdivisions (1) and (2) is consistent with this policy statement.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
Even when extraordinary and compelling reasons exist, a court should only grant a motion for
release if it determines that the defendant is not a danger to the public. See USSG § 1B1.13(2). A
court should also consider whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of release. See 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); USSG § 1B1.13. Whether to grant relief under Section 3582(c)(1)(A) is
vested in the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Vangh, 990 F.3d 1138, 1140 (8th
Cir. 2021).
Odeneal contends he has mental health problems which amount to extraordinary and
compelling circumstances. The medical records Odeneal submitted in support of his motion confirm
his mental health struggles and a current diagnosis of adult antisocial behavior and schizoaffective
disorder-depressive type. See Doc. No. 300. However, the Court was aware of his prior suicide
attempts at the time of sentencing. See Doc. No. 162, ¶ 93. The medical records establish Odeneal
is receiving mental health counseling and treatment, including appropriate medication. Odeneal has
not provided any evidence that he is not able to provide self-care while incarcerated. The Court does
not doubt that incarceration can exacerbate mental health issues but this is an unfortunate incident of
incarceration that does not rise to the level of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” as contemplated
by Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In addition, Odeneal’s conviction for killing his cellmate and his
kidnapping conviction lead the Court to conclude that he may be a danger to the public if released.
The Court concludes the Section 3553(a) factors weigh against any sentence reduction.
The Court has carefully reviewed the entire record and concludes Odeneal has failed to
demonstrate “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that would warrant a sentence reduction. See
6
Case 4:12-cr-00177-DLH Document 305 Filed 09/12/22 Page 6 of 7

United States v. Jones, 836 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir. 2016) (the burden is on the defendant to establish
a sentence reduction is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3582).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendant’s motion to reduce sentence (Doc. No. 299) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of September, 2022.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court
7
Case 4:12-cr-00177-DLH Document 305 Filed 09/12/22 Page 7 of 7