USA v. Duane Bell, Sr. et al

1
3:20-cr-2887-WQH
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTHONY DUANE BELL, SR. (1)
Defendant.
Case No.: 3:20-cr-2887-WQH
ORDER
HAYES, Judge,
The matter before the Court is the Motion for Reduction in Sentence Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) filed by Defendant Anthony Duane Bell, Sr. (“Motion for
Reduction in Sentence,” ECF No. 291.)
BACKGROUND
On September 18, 2020, a 35-count indictment was filed against Defendant charging
him with conspiracy, health care fraud, and unlawful remuneration. (ECF No. 1.)
On June 27, 2023, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to Count 3 of the indictment
which charged health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347. (ECF No. 197.)
On March 11, 2024, this Court conducted a sentencing hearing and sentenced the
Defendant to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) for a term of 65 months
followed by three years of supervised release. (ECF No. 268.) Additionally, the Court
ordered Defendant to pay $21,725,604.56 in restitution. Id. According to the BOP’s online
Case 3:20-cr-02887-WQH Document 304 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 8

2
3:20-cr-2887-WQH
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
inmate locator, Defendant is now housed at Leavenworth FCI and has a projected release
date of April 20, 2027.
On March 31, 2025, Defendant, proceeding pro se, filed the pending Motion for
Reduction in Sentence, requesting that the court reduce his sentence because “he presents
‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for compassionate release due to his age, length of
time served, changes in the law, rehabilitation, unusually harsh prison conditions, family
circumstances, programming, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5), and serious medical issues.” Id. at
1-2.
On April 8, 2025, pursuant to General Order No. 692-B, the Court referred the matter
to Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. (“Federal Defenders”). (ECF No. 292.) Federal
Defenders subsequently filed a status report stating, “[a]fter reviewing the relevant records
in Mr. Bell’s case, [Federal Defenders] concludes the Court can decide the motion on the
existing record without further assistance of counsel.” (ECF No. 299.)
Plaintiff United States of America subsequently filed an opposition to the Motion
for Reduction in Sentence. (ECF No. 294). Plaintiff contends that “Defendant’s health is
well managed in custody, and Defendant has not shown “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” that would compel his early release.” Id. at 2.
Defendant subsequently filed two replies in support of the Motion for Reduction in
Sentence. (ECF Nos. 301 and 302.)
RULING OF THE COURT
“Our justice system relies on the finality of criminal judgments. Once imposed, a
sentence may be altered ‘only in very limited circumstances.’” United States v. Bryant, 144
F.4th 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 501–02
n.14 (2011); citing Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 309 (1989)). “With 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A), 	Congress 	provided 	one 	such 	‘narrow’ 	exception—sometimes 	called
compassionate 	release—for 	when 	‘extraordinary 	and 	compelling 	reasons’ 	warrant
reducing a defendant’s sentence.” Id. (quoting Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522,
526 (2011)). “As compassionate release derogates from the principle of finality, it is a
Case 3:20-cr-02887-WQH Document 304 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 8

3
3:20-cr-2887-WQH
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
narrow 	remedy, and the court’s disposition of a compassionate release motion 	is
discretionary, not mandatory.” United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 944–45 (9th Cir.
2022) (quotations omitted).
“The First Step Act grants courts the discretion to consider compassionate release
motions on an individualized basis,” although “the exercise of this discretion is controlled
by three substantive considerations.” Id. at 945 (citations omitted). “First, the district court
must find that ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ warrant a sentence reduction.”
Bryant, 144 F.4th at 1123 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). “Second, the reduction
must 	be 	‘consistent 	with 	applicable 	policy 	statements 	issued 	by 	the 	Sentencing
Commission.’” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)). “Third, the district court must
consider the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)—including the nature of the offense
and 	the 	defendant’s 	characteristics—to 	determine 	‘whether 	the 	requested 	sentence
reduction is warranted under the particular circumstances of the case.’” Id. (quoting Wright,
46 F.4th at 945; citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 n.6 (2007)).1 “Although a
district court must conclude that a defendant satisfies all three predicates before granting a
motion for compassionate release, it may deny compassionate release if a defendant fails
to satisfy any of these grounds.” Wright, 46 F.4th at 945 (citation omitted). “[I]t [i]s
[defendant]’s burden to establish his eligibility for compassionate release….” Id. at 951.
Section 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines states in relevant part:
Upon motion …, the court may reduce a term of imprisonment (and
may impose a term of supervised release with or without conditions that does
not exceed the unserved portion of the original term of imprisonment) if, after
consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that
they are applicable, the court determines that—
1 These factors include, among other things: (1) the defendant’s personal history and characteristics; (2)
his sentence relative to the nature and seriousness of his offense; (3) the need for a sentence to provide
just punishment, promote respect for the law, reflect the seriousness of the offense, deter crime, and protect
the public; (4) the need for rehabilitative services; (5) the applicable sentence guidelines; and (6) the need
to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); see
also Wright, 46 F.4th at 945 n.4.
Case 3:20-cr-02887-WQH Document 304 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 8

4
3:20-cr-2887-WQH
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)(A) Extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant the reduction. . .
(2) The 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); and
(3) The reduction is consistent with this policy statement.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13; see also Bryant, 144 F.4th at 1124 (“[C]ourts are bound by § 1B1.13
in deciding all compassionate release motions under § 3582(c)(1)(A).”) (quotation
omitted). Section 1B1.13 lists circumstances that qualify as “extraordinary and compelling
reasons.”
Defendant contends that his sentence should be reduced due to his medical
conditions. Section 1B1.13 states that “[e]xtraordinary and compelling reasons exist” when
“[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.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff filed
under seal 399 pages of BOP medical records related to Defendant. (See ECF No. 298.)
These records show that when Defendant first arrived into BOP custody, he underwent a
health screening to review his health conditions. Id. at 87–93. Defendant was asked about
his medical issues and then-current medications, which at that time included three
prescription medications. Id. at 92. After lab tests were conducted, a complete preventative
health visit occurred and Defendant’s medical conditions were addressed, which included
osteoporosis, 	diabetes, 	hypertension, 	obesity, 	gastroesophageal 	reflux 	disease, 	liver
disease, and back pain with sciatica. Id. at 76; see also id. at 76–78, 94–108. During the
course of 2024 and 2025, Defendant was seen by medical professionals numerous times
for various reasons, including administering Ozempic for weight loss, and treating
suspected kidney stones, a urinary tract infection, and “trigger finger.” Id. at 42, 60–61,
66–67, 70, 173, 193, 202, 206, 218, 233, 246. Defendant’s most serious medical issues
appear to have been intermittent chest pains, for which he was transported to a hospital
emergency department in August 2024 where diagnostic tests showed “unremarkable
Case 3:20-cr-02887-WQH Document 304 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 4
of 8

5
3:20-cr-2887-WQH
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
[results] including an unremarkable echocardiogram and an unremarkable myocardial
perfusion scan.” Id. at 282–83. Defendant again was transported to the hospital emergency
department for chest pain and follow-up tests were conducted and additional medication
was prescribed. Id. at 13. This chest pain appears to be related to his heart condition and/or
high blood pressure which was diagnosed in 2008. (See PSR ¶ 75, ECF No. 210.) The BOP
medical records show that, during Defendant’s period of incarceration, regular medications
have been administered and adjusted as necessary to manage his conditions, including his
high blood pressure. It appears that Defendant’s medical conditions are monitored by
medical staff, and remain under control while he has been in BOP custody. Indeed, the
records show that Defendant lost weight and improved his blood sugar level while in
custody. Defendant has failed to satisfy his burden that he “is suffering from a medical
condition that requires long-term or specialized medical care that is not being provided”
by BOP. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added).
Defendant also contends that a sentence reduction is warranted due to his wife’s
sickle cell disease and other medical conditions. (See ECF No. 291 at 15.) Section 1B1.13
states that “[e]xtraordinary and compelling reasons exist” based on “[t]he incapacitation of
the defendant’s spouse … when the defendant would be the only available caregiver for
the spouse….” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(B). Defendant has failed to demonstrate that his
wife’s medical conditions—although very serious—are incapacitating. Defendant also has
failed to show that he is the only available caregiver for his wife. For example, Defendant
offers no explanation as to the availability of his wife’s adult son (and a co-defendant in
this case), who lived in the same household as her at the time of the preparation of the
Presentence Report and was released from BOP custody on December 30, 2024.
In his second reply brief, Defendant contends for the first time that he was the victim
of sexual assault by a correctional officer in January 2025. (See ECF No. 302 at 1–2.)
Section 1B1.13 states that “[e]xtraordinary and compelling reasons exist” when “[t]he
defendant, while in custody serving the term of imprisonment sought to be reduced, was a
victim of … sexual abuse … that was committed by … a correctional officer.” U.S.S.G. §
Case 3:20-cr-02887-WQH Document 304 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 5
of 8

6
3:20-cr-2887-WQH
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
1B1.13(b)(4). The Guidelines continue: “For purposes of this provision, the misconduct
must be established by a conviction in a criminal case, a finding or admission of liability
in a civil case, or a finding in an administrative proceeding, unless such proceedings are
unduly delayed or the defendant is in imminent danger.” Id.
Despite the fact that Defendant asserts the sexual assault happened over three months
before Defendant filed his Motion for Reduction in Sentence, Defendant failed to mention
it in his motion or in his first reply brief. In his second reply brief, Defendant states that he
“didn’t include my sexual assault information in my compassionate release motion because
I didn’t want to come off as a complainer.” (ECF No. 302 at 4.) The Court does not need
to consider this argument raised for the first time in his second reply brief. See Zamani v.
Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The district court need not consider arguments
raised for the first time in a reply brief.”).
Even considering Defendant’s assertion that he was assaulted by a correctional
officer, Defendant has failed to show that “the misconduct [has been] established by a
conviction in a criminal case, a finding or admission of liability in a civil case, or a finding
in an administrative proceeding.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(4). In his unverified brief,
Defendant states that he reported the assault, but Defendant has not produced evidence
establishing the date of any administrative or judicial complaint or that the proceedings
related to this complaint have been “unduly delayed.” Id. Defendant asserts that he felt
threatened when his alleged assailant was assigned to guard him during a hospital visit
approximately four months after the alleged assault, asserting that the correctional officer
stood in his hospital room with “his arms folded” and when Defendant began putting on
his shoes to leave, the officer offered to “walk out of the room, [and] he also claimed that
he knew nothing about the complaint.” (ECF No. 302 at 3.) The Court finds that this
allegation alone is insufficient to show that Defendant “is in imminent danger.” U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13(b)(4).
Defendant also relies upon the narrow catch-all provision of § 1B1.13(b), which
states that “[e]xtraordinary and compelling reasons exist” when “[t]he defendant presents
Case 3:20-cr-02887-WQH Document 304 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 6
of 8

7
3:20-cr-2887-WQH
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
any other circumstance or combination of circumstances that, when considered by
themselves or together with any of the reasons described in [prior] paragraphs …, are
similar in gravity to those described in [prior] paragraphs….” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5); see
Bryant, 	144 	F.4th 	at 	1126 	(“Subsection 	(b)(5) 	is 	narrow.”). 	The 	Court 	considers
Defendant’s medical conditions in combination with the other circumstances outlined in
his motion and replies, such as his wife’s medical conditions, the “[n]umerous lockdowns”
and conditions at the BOP institution where he is housed, and his commendable record of
“tak[ing] advantage of every rehabilitation program that has been made available to him.”
(ECF No. 291 at 15–19.) The Court finds that Defendant has failed to show that these
circumstances, even viewed in combination, are “similar in gravity” to the circumstances
set out in Section 1B1.13(b) paragraphs (1) through (4). The Court finds that Defendant
has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence
reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
The Court also considers and weighs “the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to
decide whether the requested sentence reduction is warranted under the particular
circumstances of the case.” Wright, 46 F.4th at 945; see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). As
discussed in the Presentence Report, Defendant and other co-conspirators engaged in an
elaborate and extensive unlawful kickback scheme resulting in Defendant’s companies
being paid approximately $21.75 million from Medicare. (See ECF No. 210 ¶¶ 6–24.) As
the Court discussed at sentencing, the nature and circumstances of the offense are
aggravated based upon the nature of the scheme, the amount of the loss, the length of time
that the Defendant was involved in the offense, and the finding at sentencing that
Defendant’s son would not have been involved in the offense had it not been for
Defendant’s involvement. At sentencing, the Court also considered Defendant’s positive
characteristics, such as his lack of criminal history, his physical limitations and health
issues, his prior business success, his acceptance of responsibility, and his family support.
(See ECF No. 268 at 25–31.) The Court balanced the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing and
found that they supported a 65-month sentence, which was below the applicable Guideline
Case 3:20-cr-02887-WQH Document 304 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 7
of 8

8
3:20-cr-2887-WQH
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
range of 78–97 months. The Court has considered Defendant’s arguments in the pending
motion and reply briefs and finds that these circumstances are not sufficient to alter the
Court’s determination at sentencing that 65 months of custody is a sentence sufficient, but
not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in § 3553(a). Based upon
the record, the Court finds that the need for the sentence “to reflect the seriousness of the
offense,” “to provide just punishment for the offense,” and “to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants” continues to support the
sentence imposed. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Reduction in Sentence (ECF No.
291) is denied. This decision is without prejudice to Defendant refiling the motion if he is
able to satisfy his burden of demonstrating a sentence reduction is warranted pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Dated: January 5, 2026
Case 3:20-cr-02887-WQH Document 304 Filed 01/05/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 8
of 8