USA v. Leafstedt

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUINCY LEAFSTEDT,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-cr-00047-SLG
ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(COMPASSIONATE RELEASE)
Before the Court at Docket 63 is defendant Quincy Leafstedt’s Motion for
Reconsideration. Mr. Leafstedt seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order at
Docket 62, in which the Court denied Mr. Leafstedt’s motion for compassionate
release because the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support a reduction in
sentence and because Mr. Leafstedt had not shown that his obesity constituted
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release.1 The government responded in
opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration at Docket 65. The U.S. Probation
Office filed an updated Compassionate Release Investigation report at Docket 70.
I. Applicable law
1 Docket 62 at 4–8.
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 72 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 10

Case No. 3:15-cr-00047-SLG, United States v. Leafstedt
Order Re Motion for Reconsideration (Compassionate Release)
Page 2 of 10
Local Rule 47.1 permits reconsideration if the moving party shows a
“manifest error of the law or fact,” “discovery of new material facts not previously
available,” or an “intervening change in the law.”2 The government contends that
the “new facts” asserted in Mr. Leafstedt’s motion for reconsideration “are not
material because they do not change the Court’s analysis in its prior denial” of
compassionate release.3 However, the Court finds that Mr. Leafstedt has shown
“new material facts” that were not provided to the Court in Mr. Leafstedt’s previous
motion and will consider the motion on the merits.4
II. Extraordinary and compelling reasons
Mr. Leafstedt asserts that he is obese, with a body mass index (BMI) of
41.3.5 The Court previously concluded that Mr. Leafstedt had not demonstrated
that his obesity constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for
compassionate release. Mr. Leafstedt now points to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), which has updated its COVID-19 guidelines to state
that people with a BMI of 30 or more are considered to be at greater risk of
hospitalization or death from COVID-19.6 Mr. Leafstedt also asserts that he has
2 D. Ak. Loc. Crim. R. 47.1(g)(1).
3 Docket 65 at 5. Incidentally, the government itself did not comply with the local rule, which
limits responses to motions to reconsider to five pages. D. Ak. Loc. Crim. R. 47.1(g)(3).
4 See Dockets 63, 66-1, 68-1, 71-1.
5 Docket 48 at 25; Docket 58 at 3, 9.
6 Docket 63 at 2–3. See CDC, People with Certain Medical Conditions (available at
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-medical-
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 72 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 10

Case No. 3:15-cr-00047-SLG, United States v. Leafstedt
Order Re Motion for Reconsideration (Compassionate Release)
Page 3 of 10
recently been diagnosed with hypertension.7 Mr. Leafstedt maintains that his
obesity and hypertension are extraordinary and compelling reasons for the Court
to grant compassionate release, and he cites to other district courts that have
granted compassionate release to inmates with hypertension.8 For
purposes of the motion to reconsider, the Court assumes without deciding that Mr.
Leafstedt’s combination of obesity and hypertension may constitute “extraordinary
and compelling reasons” for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c).
III. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
In considering the § 3553(a) factors, a court “should assess whether [they]
outweigh the ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ warranting compassionate
release.”9 The Court finds the applicable § 3553(a) factors continue to outweigh
Mr. Leafstedt’s health conditions for several reasons:
(1) Mr. Leafstedt had not identified how he would comply with the
requirements that he complete sex offender treatment and have no
contact with minors without adult supervision, particularly in light of
the presentence report’s assessment that “as an untreated sex
offender, Leafstedt poses a risk of danger to minor children in the
community” and the Compassionate Release Investigation’s
determination that “[t]he defendant poses a risk to the public based
on the nature of the instant offense.”
conditions.html#obesity) (updated July 30, 2020) (last accessed Aug. 13, 2020).
7 Docket 63 at 3.
8 Docket 63 at 3.
9 United States v. Ebbers, 432 F.Supp.3d 421, 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 72 Filed 08/17/20 Page 3 of 10

Case No. 3:15-cr-00047-SLG, United States v. Leafstedt
Order Re Motion for Reconsideration (Compassionate Release)
Page 4 of 10
There is no evidence in the record that Mr. Leafstedt has engaged in any sex
offender treatment or other rehabilitative programming specific to child
pornography offenders. In his 2017 sentencing memorandum, Mr. Leafstedt
asserted that “[a] 48-month prison term is ample time for Mr. Leafstedt to
complete all sex offender treatment available in the Bureau of Prisons.”10 It has
now been more than 40 months since Mr. Leafstedt was sentenced, yet he does
not appear to have begun any sex offender treatment. The Court notes that FCI
Terminal Island does not appear to have a formal sex offender treatment
program.11 But there is no indication in the record as to any efforts Mr. Leafstedt
has made during the past several years to obtain treatment while incarcerated.
And while the Probation Office in the District of Alaska recommended granting
compassionate release, it also concluded that Mr. Leafstedt poses a risk to the
public “based on the nature of the instant offense.”12 The applicable policy
statement of the Sentencing Commission for a reduction in sentence under §
10 Docket 29 at 14. In his sentencing memorandum, Mr. Leafstedt also asserted that “The non-
residential Sex Offender Management Program, available at various facilities across the country,
is normally completed within six months. The residential Sex Offender Treatment Program,
available only at F.C. Devens in Massachusetts, is normally completed in 12 to 18 months. Mr.
Leafstedt asks that the Court recommend to the Bureau of Prisons that he be considered for
both programs.” Docket 29 at 14–15. The BOP’s website states that the non-residential
treatment program takes 9–12 months to complete. BOP, Sex Offenders: Treatment Programs,
available at www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/sex_offenders.jsp (last accessed Aug. 14,
2020).
11 BOP, Sex Offenders: Treatment Programs, available at
www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/sex_offenders.jsp (see map) (last accessed Aug. 14,
2020).
12 Docket 70 at 2.
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 72 Filed 08/17/20 Page 4 of 10

Case No. 3:15-cr-00047-SLG, United States v. Leafstedt
Order Re Motion for Reconsideration (Compassionate Release)
Page 5 of 10
3582(c)(1)(A) requires a determination that “[t]he defendant is not a danger to the
safety of any other person or to the community.” This is at odds with the Probation
Officer’s finding. While Mr. Leafstedt may commence sex offender treatment if
released to home confinement in Idaho, unless and until he successfully
completes such treatment, he is a danger to the safety of minor children. This
factor alone outweighs Mr. Leafstedt’s health-related reasons for release at this
time.
(2) Mr. Leafstedt proposed to reside with his mother, but she lived in
an extended-stay long-term hotel and had no permanent housing
arranged. This lack of private housing meant that Mr. Leafstedt
and his mother had no control over minors being present in and
around the hotel.
Mr. Leafstedt asserts that his mother “has since relocated to permanent (private)
housing” in Idaho.13 The U.S. Probation Office in the District of Idaho recently
investigated Mr. Leafstedt’s mother’s home in Lewiston, Idaho, and “[t]he home
was deemed appropriate[.]”14 Surveillance of Mr. Leafstedt in 2015 “tend[ed] to
confirm that . . . Leafstedt had limited contact with children, and did not appear to
be frequenting places where children gathered.”15 The Probation Office also
assessed Mr. Leafstedt’s mother “as being a positive support for the defendant.”16
13 Docket 63 at 1.
14 Docket 70 at 2.
15 Docket 27 at 2.
16 Docket 70 at 2.
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 72 Filed 08/17/20 Page 5 of 10

Case No. 3:15-cr-00047-SLG, United States v. Leafstedt
Order Re Motion for Reconsideration (Compassionate Release)
Page 6 of 10
However, Mr. Leafstedt committed his offense while living in a home with his then-
girlfriend, indicating that residing with another person does not necessarily prevent
him from engaging in criminal conduct.17 As an untreated sex offender, Mr.
Leatstedt would be a danger to minor children even if residing with his mother.
(3) Mr. Leafstedt fled the state of Alaska for Oregon soon after a
search warrant was executed on his home and “avoided law
enforcement’s attempts to locate him for more than a year.”
Accordingly, Mr. Leafstedt’s transition back into the community
would need to be heavily monitored, which may not be feasible at
this time.
Mr. Leafstedt maintains that his “travel to Oregon was not alleged to have qualified
as obstructive conduct under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, and it does not appear that Mr.
Leafstedt has been given an opportunity to dispute findings to that effect. It is
improper to attribute Mr. Leafstedt’s non-obstructive conduct as grounds for finding
that he presents a danger to the public.”18 Despite the Presentence Report not
penalizing Mr. Leafstedt for this conduct, the Court’s Statement of Reasons for its
sentence notes that he “[l]eft state of Alaska after search warrant and in absconder
status.”19 However, even if the Court does not consider Mr. Leafstedt’s history of
17 See United States v. Mitchell, Case No. 2:12-CR-0401 KJM, 2020 WL 2770070, at *4 (E.D.
Cal. May 28, 2020) (noting that child pornography defendant “committed his crime at home
while residing with his wife; it is this home where his wife still lives to which he asks to be
released” and denying compassionate release).
18 Docket 63 at 2, n.1.
19 Docket 36 at 3 (under seal).
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 72 Filed 08/17/20 Page 6 of 10

Case No. 3:15-cr-00047-SLG, United States v. Leafstedt
Order Re Motion for Reconsideration (Compassionate Release)
Page 7 of 10
leaving the state while knowing that he likely faced federal prosecution, it does not
alter the Court’s conclusion.
The Probation Office for the District of Idaho has agreed to supervise Mr.
Leafstedt if he is released. Counterweighing this agreement to supervise is the
Court’s concern that, because possession of child pornography “does not require
anything more than access to the internet. In today’s society with smartphones,
tablets, laptops, smart TVs, and countless other devices, it would not be possible
to place [a child pornography defendant] in home confinement and eliminate his
ability to engage in his prior criminal conduct.”20 Because this conduct can occur
in home confinement, “effectively monitoring him would require repeated visits to
his home. Such visits would enhance the risk of the spread of COVID-19 to
[defendant], anyone living with him, and the individuals charged with monitoring
his compliance.”21
(4) Mr. Leafstedt had already received a downward variance due to
the Court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors at the time of his
sentencing, and he had not presented any reasons that would
justify a further reduction in sentence.22
Mr. Leafstedt’s Guidelines range was 97–120 months; the Court sentenced him to
75 months, almost two years less than the low end of the Guideline range despite
20 United States v. Miezin, Case No. 1:13CR15, 2020 WL 1985042, at *5 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 27,
2020).
21 Id. (emphasizing that “the pandemic and the CDC’s recommended guidelines would only
serve to make it more difficult to monitor Miezin’s behavior in home confinement”).
22 Docket 36 at 3 (under seal).
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 72 Filed 08/17/20 Page 7 of 10

Case No. 3:15-cr-00047-SLG, United States v. Leafstedt
Order Re Motion for Reconsideration (Compassionate Release)
Page 8 of 10
the nature of the crime. Notably, part of the Court’s reason for the below-
Guidelines sentence was Mr. Leafstedt’s asserted “desire for treatment,” which he
has not yet engaged in.23
“[F]ederal courts have been disinclined to grant compassionate release to
petitioners convicted of crimes involving child pornography, even for vulnerable
petitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic, citing potential dangerousness.”24
Despite this trend, Mr. Leafstedt is entitled to an individualized review of his
particular case and circumstances and “such a motion should not be denied simply
because of the underlying offenses.”25 Accordingly, the Court has carefully
reviewed Mr. Leafstedt’s newly presented information and agrees that it tends to
move the scale in his favor. The Court also recognizes that Mr. Leafstedt’s
underlying conduct did not involve him having any physical contact with minors.
23 Docket 36 at 3 (under seal).
24 Coleman v. United States, Case No. 4:17-cr-69, 2020 WL 3039123, at *4 (E.D. Va. June 4,
2020) (listing cases). See also See United States v. Mitchell, 2020 WL 2770070, at *4 (E.D.
Cal. May 28, 2020) (denying compassionate release because of child pornography petitioner’s
lack of rehabilitation and the absence of a detailed plan to prevent reoffending); Turner v. United
States, Case No. 2:18-cr-128, 2020 WL 4370124, at *3 (E.D. Va. July 30, 2020) (finding that “a
generalized recitation of supervision conditions for sex offenders is no substitute for a release
plan that proactively addresses the risk of a subsequent offense”); United States v. Webster,
Case No. 3:91CR138 (DJN), 2020 WL 618828, at *6–7 (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 2020) (denying
motion for compassionate release in part because defendant did not present evidence of
rehabilitation to change assessment made at time of sentencing or to suggest he would not
recidivate). But see United States v. Sawicz, Case No. 08-CR-287 (ARR), 2020 WL 1815851,
at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2020) (granting compassionate release to child pornography defendant
with hypertension after finding that that “he would pose little, if any, risk to the public”).
25 Coleman v. United States, Case No. 4:17-cr-69, 2020 WL 3039123, at *4 (E.D. Va. June 4,
2020).
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 72 Filed 08/17/20 Page 8 of 10

Case No. 3:15-cr-00047-SLG, United States v. Leafstedt
Order Re Motion for Reconsideration (Compassionate Release)
Page 9 of 10
However, despite the new information, the Court finds that the nature and
circumstances of Mr. Leafstedt’s child pornography offense, which involved
particularly vulnerable victims, weigh heavily in favor of him remaining in custody.
Of the thousands of images and dozens of videos of child pornography that Mr.
Leafstedt downloaded, “a total of 56 of the images contained sadistic material and
143 of the images contained toddlers” including bound and blindfolded children
being sexually assaulted, raped, and made to engage in bestiality.26 The Court
finds that the nature and circumstance of the offense, coupled with the lack of any
rehabilitation and an inadequate release plan, necessitate Mr. Leafstedt
completing his imposed sentence in order to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
promote respect for the law, afford adequate deterrence, protect the public, and
provide just punishment.27
CONCLUSION
Assuming that Mr. Leafstedt has shown “extraordinary and compelling”
health-related reasons for a reduction in sentence, this Court must still deny his
request for compassionate release because the § 3553(a) factors, in particular his
danger to minor children, substantially outweigh Mr. Leafstedt’s health conditions
that support his release.
26 Docket 27 at 15, 27 (under seal).
27 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). The Court has reviewed Mr. Leafstedt’s “Individualized Reentry Plan”
filed at Docket 71-1. That documents shows the Mr. Leafstedt’s education courses include
crochet and “beginning bridge” but show no classes aimed at reducing his risk of recidivism.
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 72 Filed 08/17/20 Page 9 of 10

Case No. 3:15-cr-00047-SLG, United States v. Leafstedt
Order Re Motion for Reconsideration (Compassionate Release)
Page 10 of 10
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to reconsider at
Docket 63 is DENIED.
DATED this 17th day of August, 2020, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 72 Filed 08/17/20 Page 10 of 10