USA v. Jose Montes, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
United States of America
v.
Luis M. Morales
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:20-cr-00106/CR20-114MSM
ORDER
Mary S. McElroy, United States District Judge.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On December 21, 2020, Luis Morales plead guilty to conspiracy to commit
interstate 	transportation 	of 	stolen 	property, 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	371, 	interstate
transportation of stolen property, 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and possession of a firearm by a
prohibited person, 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(1). 	These charges arose from Mr. Morales’
involvement 	in 	a 	series 	of 	high-end 	thefts 	of 	extreme 	sport 	and 	construction
equipment including eleven jet skis, three sports boats, several all-terrain vehicles,
and multiple other heavy machines. 	Mr. Morales was not involved in all of these
thefts, and he was cooperative with officials during the investigation.
On April 4, 2022, this Court sentenced Mr. Morales’ to 37 months of incarceration
to be followed by a term of supervised release of three years. Mr. Morales is presently
incarcerated at FMC Devens in the minimum-security camp. 	He now comes before
the Court to request a reduction of his sentence to time served, with one year of home
confinement as an added condition of supervised release, pursuant to the First Step
Case 1:20-cr-00106-MSM-LDA Document 187 Filed 10/20/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Act. 	The First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, at 5239 (amending
18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	3582(c)(1)(A) 	to 	authorize 	inmate-initiated 	motions 	for 	sentence
reductions).
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
This 	Court 	may 	grant 	an 	inmate’s 	motion 	for 	reduction 	of 	his 	term 	of
imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.”
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Congress has not specified the circumstances that qualify
as “extraordinary and compelling,” except to state that a reduction pursuant to this
provision must be “consistent with the applicable policy statements by the Sentencing
Commission.”
	Id. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 	Because the relevant Sentencing Commission
policy statement, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, has not been amended since the passage of the
First Step Act, which first allowed for prisoner-initiated motions for compassionate
release, the First Circuit has held that “a district court is not constrained by the
existing policy statement on compassionate release when adjudicating a motion
brought by a prisoner.”
United States v. Ruvalcaba, 26 F.4th 14, 21 (1st Cir. 2022).
In the absence of an ‘applicable’ policy statement, district courts are “empowered ...
to consider
any extraordinary and compelling reason for release that a defendant
might raise.”
Id. (quoting
United States v. Brooker, 976 F.3d 228 (2d Cir. 2020).
Acknowledging 	that 	the 	U.S.S.G. 	§ 	1B1.13 	policy 	statement 	is 	no 	longer
applicable, the Sentencing Commission recently promulgated several amendments to
incorporate the changes brought about by the passage of the First Step Act. 	On
November 	1, 	2023, 	all 	courts 	will 	apply 	the 	new 	policy 	statement 	absent
Case 1:20-cr-00106-MSM-LDA Document 187 Filed 10/20/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Congressional action to the contrary—but courts may consider the amendments prior
to that date.
See, e.g., United States v. Mathews, No. 2:19-CR-41, 2023 WL 5924411,
at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 12, 2023).
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as amended empowers judges to reduce the sentence of an
inmate for any reason within a range of listed circumstances, such as “the death or
incapacitation of the caregiver of the defendant’s minor child or the defendant’s child
who is 18 years of age or older and incapable of self-care.”
Id. § 1B1.13(3)(A). 	The
amended policy statement also contains a series of broad catchall provisions, which
authorize a sentence reduction where “the defendant establishes that circumstances
similar to those listed … exist.”
See, e.g., Id. § 1B1.13(3)(D). As such, district courts
will retain broad authority to reduce an inmate’s sentence when the amended policy
takes effect.
III. 	DISCUSSION
Mr. Morales asserts that there is a compelling and extraordinary reason for the
Court to reduce his sentence to time served, with one year of home confinement as an
added condition of supervised release. Notably, the government does not object. The
Court agrees with Mr. Morales.
Mr. Morales’ son has leukemia. Despite the best efforts of his family, Mr. Morales’
son’s condition continues to deteriorate. 	Physicians have advised the family that
curative care is no longer appropriate and have transitioned Mr. Morales’ son to
palliative care. 	Unfortunately, it is uncertain how long he will survive given his
present condition.
Case 1:20-cr-00106-MSM-LDA Document 187 Filed 10/20/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
The responsibility of taking care of his son has taken a severe toll on the family,
and most significantly on his son’s mother. 	As a result of this and other stressors,
she submits that she suffers from severe depression which makes it challenging to
care for her son and her other children.
	See ECF No. 33 at 11; U.S.S.G §§
1B1.13(3)(A), 1B1.13(3)(D). 	Reducing Mr. Morales’ sentence will allow him to fulfill
his caretaking responsibilities for his terminally ill son when his son’s mother and
only caretaker is near her breaking point.
See United States v. Barnes, No. 3:17-cr-
00011, 2021 WL 1269783, at *4 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2021) (granting a sentence
reduction where “[i]instead of having two adults in the home that can provide care,
there [was] now only one caretaker who is facing her own health concerns”).
When 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling 	reasons 	for 	a 	sentence 	reduction 	are
established, the Court must still consider the relevant sentencing factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to determine whether a sentence reduction is warranted. 	18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 	These factors include—among other things—the nature and
circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the
need 	for the 	sentence 	imposed, 	and 	the 	need 	to 	avoid 	unwarranted 	sentence
disparities with similarly situated defendants.
Id. § 3553(a). These factors are to be
weighed to craft a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to serve the
purposes of sentencing.
Id.
The § 3553(a) factors support a reduction of Mr. Morales’ sentence. Mr. Morales
did not commit a violent crime, and he has no history of violent crime. While
incarcerated, Mr. Morales has not been subject to any discipline. 	He has also
Case 1:20-cr-00106-MSM-LDA Document 187 Filed 10/20/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
participated in programs such as an ACT Workkeys Certification, a House Keeping
Apprenticeship, and a Drug Education program. 	Prior to his incarceration, Mr.
Morales spent two years on pre-trial release with no violations, and he surrendered
when ordered to do so. 	And, if he were to remain incarcerated, Mr. Morales would
nevertheless be eligible for resentencing in less than six months due to pending
amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines.
See U.S.S.G. Amendment 821. Moreover,
the government does not object to Mr. Morales’ release. A reduced sentence to include
one year of home confinement is sufficient to serve the purposes of incarceration
under these circumstances. § 3553(a).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Mr. Morales’ motion for a reduction of sentence is GRANTED. 	Mr. Morales
shall be placed on one year of home detention as an additional condition of supervised
release. While on home detention he will be subject to RF monitoring, and will be
restricted to his residence every day except as permitted by probation and with
exception to include caring for his son as well as for employment, education, religious
services, medical treatment, substance abuse or mental health treatment, attorney
visits, 	court 	appearances, 	court-ordered 	obligations 	or 	other 	activities 	as 	pre-
approved by the officer The defendant shall pay all or part of the cost of monitoring
based on ability to pay as determined by the probation officer. 	Mr. Morales shall
report to the probation office no later than 2 p.m. on Monday October 23, 2023.
Case 1:20-cr-00106-MSM-LDA Document 187 Filed 10/20/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
So Ordered,
_________________________________
Mary S. McElroy
United States District Judge
October 20, 2023
Case 1:20-cr-00106-MSM-LDA Document 187 Filed 10/20/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>