USA v. Moreno

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RONNIE MORENO,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate Release, which
seeks an order reducing his sentence. 1 	Plaintiff and United States Probation and
Pretrial 	Services 	(“Probation”) 	both 	oppose. 2 	Because 	Defendant 	has 	not
demonstrated 	that 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling 	reasons 	warrant 	a 	sentence
reduction or that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support such a reduction, the Court
recommends 	that 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	for 	Compassionate 	Release 	be 	DENIED
without prejudice.
I. 	Procedural History
In April 2016, Defendant Ronnie Moreno was arrested pursuant to a criminal
complaint and charged by information with one count of Drug Conspiracy, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B).3 In June 2016, Defendant pled
guilty to the charged offense pursuant to a plea agreement. 4 In February 2017, the
District Court sentenced Defendant to 120 months imprisonment followed by five
years of supervised release. 5 Defendant, now age 49, is serving his term of custody
at Anchorage Correctional Complex (“ACC”), an Alaska state prison, and has a
1 Docs. 205, 216.
2 Docs. 218, 219.
3 Doc. 14.
4 Doc. 22.
5 Doc. 68.
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 1 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report & Rec. – Mot. for Compassionate Release
United States v. Moreno
3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
2
scheduled release date of October 8, 2024. 6
On October 10, 2023, Defendant filed a pro se Motion for Compassionate
Release, along with numerous supporting exhibits. 7 The District Court referred the
matter to this Court, which then appointed counsel to assist Defendant with his
motion.8 On December 13, 2023, Defense Counsel filed an Amended Motion for
Compassionate Release. 9 The Court will refer to these two filings collectively as the
“Motion.”10
On December 13, 2023, the Government responded in opposition.11 Probation
filed a sealed memorandum regarding the Motion the following day.12
II. 	Legal Standard
A court generally may not correct or modify a prison sentence once it has been
imposed, unless permitted by statute or by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35.13
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, 14 allows the Bureau
of Prisons (“BOP”) and certain inmates to move the district court for “a form of
sentence modification,” commonly referred to as compassionate release. 15 	Section
3582(c)(1) authorizes a court to reduce a sentence upon a compassionate release
motion if four conditions are met: (1) the defendant has exhausted his administrative
rights; (2) “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant” a sentence reduction;
(3) the applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support a sentence
reduction; and (4) a sentence reduction is “consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”
6 Doc. 219 at 1.
7 Doc. 205.
8 Docs. 208, 209.
9 Doc. 216 at 1.
10 Defense Counsel indicates that the Amended Motion “incorporate[es]” and supplements
Defendant’s pro se Motion.
11 Doc. 217. 	The Government later filed an amended response that supersedes its initial
filing. Doc. 218.
12 Doc. 219.
13 United States v. Penna, 315 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Dillon v. United States,
506 U.S. 817, 824-25 (2010).
14 See Pub. L. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5239 (2018).
15 See United States v. King, 24 F.4th 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2022).
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 2 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report & Rec. – Mot. for Compassionate Release
United States v. Moreno
3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
3
The 	policy 	statement 	at 	U.S.S.G. 	§ 	1B1.13—“Reduction 	in 	Term 	of
Imprisonment 	under 	18 	U.S.C. 	§ 	3582(c)(1)(A)”—used 	to 	apply 	only 	to
compassionate release motions filed by BOP. 16 	Therefore, it was not binding on
district courts considering defendant-filed compassionate release motions. 17 	On
November 1, 2023, however, the Sentencing Commission amended the § 1B1.13 policy
statement to apply to both BOP-filed and defendant-filed compassionate release
motions. 18 	As a result, the policy statement is now binding on a court considering
any compassionate release motion.19
III. 	Discussion
A. Exhaustion
As a threshold matter, a court may consider a compassionate release motion
only if 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 if thirty
days have elapsed since BOP has received a compassionate release request from the
defendant.20 	Defendant notes that this exhaustion requirement may not apply to
him because he is currently housed in a state facility, not a BOP facility, and therefore
he has no way of seeking compassionate release in the manner prescribed by
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).21 	In any case, Defendant avers that he submitted a request for
compassionate release to the “superintendent” at his facility on September 8, 2022,
16 See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 801-02 (9th Cir. 2021) (evaluating the version of
the § 1B1.13 policy statement that was in effect at the time).
17 Id. (holding that although the policy statement was not binding on a district court
considering a defendant-filed compassionate release motion, it could nevertheless “inform
a district court’s discretion”).
18 See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(a) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2023) (“Upon motion
of 	the 	Director 	of 	the 	Bureau 	of 	Prisons 	or 	the 	defendant 	pursuant 	to 	18 	U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A), the court may reduce a term of imprisonment . . . .”) (emphasis added); id.
supplement to app. C, amend. 814 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2023) (changing § 1B1.13(a) language
to include defendant-filed motions and noting that this November 2023 amendment made
the policy statement applicable to defendant-filed motions).
19 See United States v. Roper, 72 F.4th 1097, 1100 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Congress has only placed
two limitations directly on extraordinary and compelling reasons: the requirement that
district courts are bound by the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement . . . and the
requirement that ‘rehabilitation alone’ is not extraordinary and compelling.” (quoting
United States v. Chen, 48 F.4th 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2022))).
20 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
21 Doc. 216 at 4.
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 3 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report & Rec. – Mot. for Compassionate Release
United States v. Moreno
3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
4
and that the request was denied that same month.22 	The Government does not
dispute the exhaustion issue.
The Court finds that Defendant has satisfied § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion
requirement. 	Because Defendant is an inmate in a non-BOP facility, he lacks any
administrative remedies to exhaust.23 	Accordingly, the Court may proceed to
consider the merits of the Motion.
B. Extraordinary and Compelling Reasons
Defendant contends that several factors collectively constitute extraordinary
and 	compelling 	reasons 	that 	merit 	a 	sentence 	reduction: 	(1) 	his 	medical
circumstances; (2) the conditions of his confinement; (3) the need to care for his
minor children and the children of his deceased brother; and (4) changes in the law
since his sentencing.24 The Court addresses each basis in turn before evaluating the
circumstances as a whole.
1. 	Medical circumstances
Defendant asserts that he is experiencing or has experienced various health
issues, including rectal bleeding, “numerous” COVID-19 contractions, shortness of
breath, pre-diabetes, high blood pressure, a “small stroke,” deteriorating eyesight,
cracked teeth, broken bones, and ligament and cartilage damage to his left knee that
requires him to wear a brace. 25 In response, the Government primarily takes issue
22 Doc. 205-1 at 3; see also Doc. 205-13 at 1.
23 Cf. Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 642 (2016) (holding in the context of the exhaustion
requirement 	contained 	in 	the 	Prison 	Litigation 	Reform 	Act 	of 	1995 	that 	“[a]n
inmate . . . must exhaust available remedies, but need not exhaust unavailable ones”);
United States v. Morales, No. 3:19-CR-00121 (KAD), 2020 WL 2097630, at *2 n.1 (D. Conn.
May 1, 2020) (observing that the warden at a non-BOP facility “ha[d] no authority under the
[First Step] Act to seek compassionate release”); United States v. Tyson, 487 F. Supp. 3d
1156, 1159-60 (D.N.M. 2020) (noting the parties’ agreement that because the defendant was
in state custody, he could not apply for compassionate release through BOP and therefore
had satisfied the statutory exhaustion requirement).
24 Defendant also asserts that his wish to see his ill mother and his incarceration in a state
facility, despite serving federal time, constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for a
sentence reduction. 	See Doc. 216 at 6. 	These circumstances do not justify a sentence
reduction. 	See generally U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(b). 	However, the Court
observes that if Defendant wishes to visit his mother, he may be able to request a furlough
for that purpose from his facility.
25 Doc. 205 at 53-54; Doc. 205-1 at 4; Doc. 205-2 at 4; Doc. 216 at 5.
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 4 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report & Rec. – Mot. for Compassionate Release
United States v. Moreno
3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
5
with Defendant’s statements regarding his medical conditions to the extent they are
not corroborated by medical records, contending that these statements “are not
credible” and cannot be relied upon. 26
A defendant’s medical status may constitute an extraordinary and compelling
reason 	in 	limited 	circumstances, 	including 	when: 	(1) 	“[t]he 	defendant
is . . . suffering from a serious physical or medical condition . . . 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”; or (2)
“[t]he defendant is suffering from a medical condition that requires long-term or
specialized medical care that is not being provided and without which the defendant
is at risk of serious deterioration in health or death.” 27
Although the Court does not wholly disregard Defendant’s self-reported
medical issues, Defendant has not demonstrated that his medical circumstances rise
to the level of an “extraordinary and compelling” reason for compassionate release.
It is difficult to discern the precise nature and seriousness of Defendant’s health
conditions from the limited evidence available. 	The medical records filed with the
Motion are both incomplete and not up to date, leaving the Court with little way to
assess how Defendant is currently faring and whether he is being provided adequate
medical care. 28 	In addition, the records do not demonstrate that Defendant has
attempted to seek treatment for several of his asserted conditions, including
shortness of breath and broken bones. 	As far as the Court can tell, Defendant has
been offered appropriate treatment for the medical conditions with which he has
26 Doc. 218 at 67.
27 U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(b)(1)(B)-(C).
28 For example, the records demonstrate that that in December 2022, Defendant was directed
to provide stool samples to attempt to diagnose the cause of his recurring rectal bleeding,
and that the following month, Defendant complained about worsening bleeding. Doc. 205-
14 at 59, 71. But the records do not contain the results of any testing or—apart from noting
that Defendant was scheduled for “outside medical” for this issue—indicate what happened
next. 	Doc. 205-14 at 71. 	Defendant reports that he has had surgery to remove polyps;
however, it is unclear when this surgery took place or what its outcome was. Doc. 205-1 at
4.
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 5 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report & Rec. – Mot. for Compassionate Release
United States v. Moreno
3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
6
been diagnosed, and he has been evaluated for the issues he has brought to his
providers’ attention.29 	Defendant may well be in less-than-ideal health, but he has
not shown that he is unable to provide self-care, 30 that his facility is failing to
provide him the care he needs, or that he suffers from a type of condition serious
enough to warrant early release. 31
The Court therefore finds that Defendant has not established that his health
status constitutes an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.
2. Conditions of confinement
Defendant further insists that he is “repeatedly catching Covid 19 and being
locked in [his] cell whereas [he] ha[s] seen other people get released.” 32 Defendant
attaches documentation of his placement in administrative segregation due to
COVID-19 concerns on three separate occasions between June 2022 and January
2023. 33
This argument is unpersuasive because Defendant has not shown that these
restrictions, brought on by a global pandemic, are unique to him. 	On the contrary,
“nearly every incarcerated person[] has experienced limitations” as a result of the
29 See Doc. 205-14 at 23 (informing Defendant that he had been ordered a “cardiac diet” for
a year), 37 (listing Defendant’s prescriptions and the reasons for each prescription), 41
(informing Defendant that his “last vital sign check [was] within normal range” and noting
a new order for “updated labs to check [Defendant’s] blood, liver, thyroid, ect. [sic]”), 43
(indicating that Defendant’s “blood pressure [was] in the normal range when [he] take[s] it
as directed” and that “[t]here were no concerning finding[s] on [Defendant’s] labs”).
30 To the contrary, Defendant marked “no” in the section of the form motion asking if he
“require[s] assistance with self-care such as bathing, walking, toileting.” Doc. 205-2 at 4.
31 See United States v. Thomas, No. 3:17-cr-00051-SLG, 2021 WL 3924724, at *2 (D. Alaska
Sept. 	1, 	2021) 	(interpreting 	former 	version 	of 	§ 	1B1.13 	to 	“suggest[] 	that 	medical
compassionate release is appropriate only for those inmates who need immediate release
due to serious medical issues”). The Court finds that the fact that Defendant has previously
contracted COVID-19 while incarcerated is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for
early release, particularly as Defendant has been vaccinated and his underlying medical
conditions appear to be well managed. See Doc. 205-14 at 53; see also, e.g., United States v.
Wills, 541 F. Supp. 3d 1185, 1190-91 (D. Or. 2021) (concluding that the defendant had not
satisfied the extraordinary and compelling standard because he had been fully vaccinated
against COVID-19, which “minimize[d] any increased risk he face[d] due to his medical
conditions”).
32 Doc. 205-1 at 4.
33 Doc. 205-14 at 11-17, 31-35, 65-69. 	The Court notes that this documentation does not
indicate that Defendant actually suffered from COVID-19 in each instance. 	Rather,
Defendant denied suffering from any communicable disease during his first period of
administrative segregation, and the recorded reason for his second such period was a ”close
contact.” Id. at 17, 31.
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 6 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report & Rec. – Mot. for Compassionate Release
United States v. Moreno
3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
7
COVID-19 	pandemic, 	such 	as 	greater 	isolation 	and 	reduced 	programming. 34
“Conditions 	that 	are 	shared 	by 	nearly 	every 	inmate 	in 	the 	country 	are 	not
extraordinary and compelling” for purposes of compassionate release. 35 As a result,
“the rampant spread of the coronavirus and the conditions of confinement in jail,
alone, are not sufficient grounds to justify a finding of extraordinary and compelling
circumstances.” 36
The Court therefore finds that Defendant’s placement in administrative
segregation as a measure to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 is not an extraordinary
and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.
3. Caretaking responsibilities
Defendant also asserts that he is the only appropriate caretaker for several
children: his two daughters, ages 7 and 11, and his deceased brother’s children. 37
Defendant states that many of his family members have died since he began his term
of incarceration, leaving him as the only appropriate caretaker. 38
A defendant’s family circumstances may constitute an extraordinary and
compelling reason for a sentence reduction when “the caregiver of the defendant’s
minor child” dies or becomes incapacitated, or when a similar situation leaves the
defendant as “the only available caregiver” for another “immediate family member
or an individual whose relationship with the defendant is similar in kind to that of
an immediate family member.” 39
On the record before the Court, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that he
is the sole available caretaker for his or his brother’s children. Defendant indicates
that he had full or primary custody of his older daughter before his incarceration
34 Thomas, 2021 WL 3924724, at *2.
35 Id.
36 Id. (quoting United States v. Koons, 455 F. Supp. 3d 285, 290–91 (W.D. La. 2020)).
37 Doc. 216 at 5-6; Doc. 205-1 at 4-5.
38 Doc. 216 at 6; Doc. 205-1 at 5.
39 U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(a)(3)(A), (D) (defining “immediate family
member” 	as 	a 	defendant’s 	child, 	spouse, 	registered 	partner, 	parent, 	grandchild,
grandparent, or sibling).
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 7 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report & Rec. – Mot. for Compassionate Release
United States v. Moreno
3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
8
and that she relied solely on him at that time, but he does not explain where his
daughters reside or whose care they are in now. 40 Similarly, Defendant only vaguely
references his deceased brother’s children and does not describe, apart from
asserting generally that “[m]any of [his] family members and friends have died since
this 	false 	wrongful 	imprisonment,” 	how 	he 	might 	be 	these 	children’s 	lone
appropriate caretaker. 41 	In short, Defendant’s Motion lacks adequate detail for the
Court to determine whether something has befallen his children’s caregiver or
whether Defendant is the only appropriate caretaker for his brother’s children. 42
The Court therefore finds that Defendant’s family circumstances do not
constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.
4. Changes in the law
Defendant additionally submits that there have been changes in the law since
his sentencing that would downgrade his criminal history category and sentencing
range if calculated today, and that these changes qualify as an extraordinary and
compelling reason for a sentence reduction.43
First, Defendant appears to contend that his continued imprisonment is
“wrongful” because his criminal history points calculated at sentencing accounted
for 	a 	2014 	conviction 	for 	an 	Alaska 	state 	law 	offense 	involving 	marijuana
possession. 44 	Defendant points out that since his sentencing, Alaska has legalized
marijuana at the state level and President Biden has pardoned federal convictions
40 See Docs. 205-1 at 4, 219 at 2.
41 See Doc. 205-1 at 5.
42 See United States v. Bolden, No. No. CR16-320-RSM, 2020 WL 4286820, at *5 (W.D. Wash.
July 27, 2020) (finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that his spouse was
incapacitated such that she could not care for herself or for their minor child, after
considering the spouse’s unverified statements regarding her medical conditions); United
States v. Beebe, No. 1:19-cr-00002-TMB, 2023 WL 7183886, at *2 (D. Alaska Nov. 1, 2023)
(finding that the defendant was the only available caregiver for his father, who had physical
assistance needs, after ruling out two other potential caregivers who had medical conditions
rendering them unable to assist); see also Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Program Statement No.
5050.50 at 7, 10 (Jan. 17, 2019) (explaining that when BOP reviews a compassionate release
request 	based 	on 	family 	circumstances, 	the 	defendant 	should 	“provide[] 	adequate
information and documentation” as described in the program statement and, where
appropriate, should “demonstrate that the inmate is the only available caregiver”).
43 Doc. 205-1 at 5; Doc. 216 at 9-11.
44 See Doc. 205-1 at 4-5; Doc. 73 at 14.
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 8 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report & Rec. – Mot. for Compassionate Release
United States v. Moreno
3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
9
for simple marijuana possession offenses. 45 	Second, Defendant states that the
Sentencing Commission’s November 2023 amendments to the Guidelines Manual
“remove ‘status’ points for most defendants, including Mr. Moreno,” who received
two such points at sentencing “by virtue of being on supervision at the time of
the . . . offense.” 46 	Defendant maintains that if this change were applied today, his
criminal history level would drop from IV to III, which would, in turn, reduce his
sentencing range from 100-125 months to 87-108 months.47
The amended § 1B1.13 policy statement bars courts from considering post-
sentencing changes in the law when determining whether an extraordinary and
compelling reason exists, unless a defendant “received an unusually long sentence
and has served at least 10 years of the term of imprisonment.” 48 If this “unusually
long sentence” exception applies, a court may consider a change in the law, “but only
where such change would produce a gross disparity between the sentence being
served and the sentence likely to be imposed at the time the motion is filed, and after
full 	consideration 	of 	the 	defendant’s 	individualized 	circumstances.” 49 	If 	the
“unusually long sentence” exception does not apply, then a court may consider a
change in the law only if a defendant can “otherwise establish[] that extraordinary
and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction under this policy statement,”
and only “for purposes of determining the extent of any such reduction.”50
Because Defendant has not served 10 years of an “unusually long sentence” or
met his burden to show extraordinary and compelling reasons aside from any
ostensible changes in the law, the amended policy statement precludes the Court
from considering his arguments on this point. Defendant asserts that a retroactive
45 Doc. 205-1 at 5; see also AS 17.38.020; Proclamation No. 10,467, 87 Fed. Reg. 61441 (Oct.
6, 2022).
46 Doc. 216 at 9.
47 Id. at 11.
48 See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(b)(6), (c). The term “unusually long sentence”
is not defined.
49 Id. § 1B1.13(b)(6). This provision also notes that a “change in the law” does not include
“an amendment to the Guidelines Manual that has not been made retroactive.” Id.
50 Id. § 1B1.13(c) (emphasis added).
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 9 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report & Rec. – Mot. for Compassionate Release
United States v. Moreno
3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
10
change to the Guidelines Manual, such as the removal of status points from a
defendant’s 	criminal 	history, 	“should 	be 	enough 	to 	establish 	a 	basis 	for
[compassionate release].” 51 	The Court disagrees with this interpretation of the
amended policy statement. Though it is true that the Court has a certain degree of
latitude when determining what constitutes extraordinary and compelling reasons
for 	a 	sentence 	reduction,52 	Defendant 	disregards 	the 	policy 	statement’s 	clear
prohibition on finding any change in the law to be extraordinary and compelling
unless the “unusually long sentence” exception applies.
The Court thus finds that any changes in the law since Defendant’s sentencing
do not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.
5. Conclusion
In sum, the Court finds that on the record before it none of the reasons offered
by Defendant—whether considered separately or together—meet the “extraordinary
and compelling” threshold for compassionate release. 	Denial of the Motion is
appropriate on this ground alone.
C. Section 3553(a) Factors
Even if Defendant had shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for a
sentence reduction, Defendant would still need to show that the § 3553(a) factors
weigh in favor of a sentence reduction. “[T]he § 3553(a) factors are a lens through
which the Court views the continued validity of the imposed sentence.” 53
Defendant maintains that the § 3553(a) factors support his early release,
reasoning that he will be adequately deterred from engaging in further criminal
conduct by the significant portion of his sentence he has served to date, that he is
51 Doc. 216 at 10-11 n.5.
52 See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(b)(5) (setting forth catch-all provision that
permits a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons where “[t]he defendant presents
any 	other 	circumstance 	or 	combination 	of 	circumstances 	that, 	when 	considered 	by
themselves or together with any of the reasons described in paragraphs (1) through (4) [of
§ 1B1.13(b)], are similar in gravity to those described in paragraphs (1) through (4)”).
53 United States v. Rodolph, No. 3:16-cr-00048-SLG-1, 2023 WL 3467493, at *2 (D. Alaska
May 15, 2023).
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 10 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report & Rec. – Mot. for Compassionate Release
United States v. Moreno
3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
11
“better suited for medical care on the outside,” and that his supervision following
release will “ensur[e] society is protected.” 54 	In contrast, Probation believes that
Defendant’s early release would not satisfy the § 3553(a) factors, particularly the
protection of the public, and notes that Defendant is still awaiting sentencing in two
State 	of 	Alaska 	cases. 55 	Probation 	references 	Defendant’s 	history 	of
methamphetamine use and points out that despite not being charged with an offense,
Defendant admittedly shot and killed an individual in 1993 in “‘mutual combat’ that
resulted in a long-standing family feud.”56
It is the Court’s view that a sentence reduction would not meet the § 3553(a)
factors. At sentencing, the District Court observed that Defendant had directed two
of his cousins to bring a “large quantity of methamphetamine . . . up [to Alaska]” in
their bodies, conduct that the District Court described as “very troubling.” 57 	The
District Court further “agree[d] with the Government’s perspective as to the severity
of th[e] crime” and found that Defendant posed a “high risk” of committing further
crimes in the future. 58 	Aside from Defendant’s conclusory statement that the time
he has served will act as sufficient deterrence, Defendant has offered no reason for
the Court to believe that is the case. 	In fact, the numerous informational and
disciplinary reports Defendant has received while in custody, including for fighting,
refusing to obey direct orders of staff, and threatening to “shank” his attorney,
suggest otherwise. 59 	Moreover, the mere fact that Defendant will be subject to
supervision after his eventual release does not dismiss the District Court’s still-valid
concerns about the need to protect the public. 	This is especially so given that
Defendant committed the offense in this case while on probation in a state case. 60
The Court therefore finds that the § 3553(a) factors do not support a sentence
54 Doc. 216 at 14.
55 Doc. 219 at 1, 3.
56 Id. at 3.
57 Doc. 87 at 69.
58 Id. at 70.
59 See Doc. 219 at 1-2.
60 See Doc. 73 at 14.
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 11 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report & Rec. – Mot. for Compassionate Release
United States v. Moreno
3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
12
reduction at this time.
D. Dangerousness
Finally, the Government insists that Defendant poses a danger to other people
and that this dangerousness serves as another independent ground to deny the
Motion. The Government asserts that Defendant’s criminal history, which includes
multiple instances of sexually abusing children, evinces a “theme of menacing and
exploiting vulnerable people,” and states that Defendant has “offer[ed] no reason to
believe he has changed.” 61
The amended § 1B1.13 policy statement requires a court to determine that
“[t]he defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or to the
community, as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)[,]” before reducing a defendant’s term
of imprisonment.62 	Before the amendment, this provision was not binding, though
courts often considered the risk defendants posed to the public “under the umbrella
of § 3553(a).” 63 	The Court agrees with the Government that in light of the
amendment to the policy statement, a finding as to a defendant’s dangerousness is
now a prerequisite for granting a sentence reduction. 	Because the Court is
disinclined to recommend a sentence reduction on the record before it, the Court
declines to make such a finding at this time.
//
//
//
//
//
//
61 Doc. 218 at 7-8.
62 U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 1B1.13(a)(2).
63 United States v. Nava, No. CR 10-134-BLG-SPW-1, 2023 WL 8281596, at *4 n.4 (D. Mont.
Nov. 30, 2023); see also Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799 (observing that a dangerousness finding “is
not statutorily required under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), but is part of the Sentencing
Commission’s [then-effective] policy statement,” which the court determined was non-
binding).
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 12 of 13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Report & Rec. – Mot. for Compassionate Release
United States v. Moreno
3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR
13
IV. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this Court recommends that Defendant’s Motion
or Compassionate Release be DENIED without prejudice.
DATED this 29th day of December, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
s/ Kyle F. Reardon
KYLE F. REARDON
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Alaska
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), a district court may designate a magistrate judge
to hear and determine matters pending before the Court. For dispositive matters, a
magistrate judge reports findings of fact and provides recommendations to the
presiding district court judge. 64 A district court judge may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. 65
A party may file written objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations within fourteen (14) days. 66 A response to the objections may be
filed within seven (7) days after any objection is filed. 67 	Objections and responses
are limited to five (5) pages in length and should not merely reargue positions
previously presented. Rather, objections and responses should specifically identify
the findings or recommendations objected to, the basis of the objection, and any legal
authority in support. Reports and recommendations are not appealable orders. Any
notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of
the district court’s judgment. 68
64 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
65 Id. § 636(b)(1)(C).
66 Id.; L.M.J.R. 7(a)(1).
67 L.M.J. R. 7(a)(2).
68 See Hilliard v. Kincheloe, 796 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1986).
Case 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR Document 220 Filed 12/29/23 Page 13 of 13