USA v. Villarreal et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:18-CR-00048-KDB-DSC-14
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Rogelio Vidal Santillan’s pro se motion
for compassionate release and reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) and appointment
of counsel. (Doc. No. 427). Having carefully reviewed the Defendant’s motion and all other
relevant portions of the record, the Court will deny the motion as Defendant has not met his burden
to establish that a sentencing reduction is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).
In 2019, Defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine, methamphetamines, and marijuana. (Doc. No. 205). He was sentenced to 101
months imprisonment plus five years of supervised release. (Doc. No. 358).
Defendant is a 55-year-old male serving his prison sentence at FDC Honolulu in Hawaii. His
current projected release date is December 25, 2025. Defendant bases his current motion on the
notion that as a deportable alien he does not receive benefits from programming and other
incentives available to other inmates that are U.S. citizens such as good time credits, residential
drug abuse program, halfway house placement and home confinement. (Doc. No. 427). With the
Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. McCoy, 981 F. 3d 271 (4th Cir. 2020), there is
now no applicable policy statement governing compassionate release motions filed by a defendant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v. ORDER
ROGELIO VIDAL SANTILLAN
Defendant.
Case 5:18-cr-00048-KDB-SCR Document 428 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1 of 3

Id. at 284. As a result, district courts are empowered to consider any extraordinary and compelling
reason for release that a defendant may raise. Id. The Court finds that this generalized complaint
applicable to presumably a great many inmates does not justify a reduction in sentence.
Furthermore, to the extent that Defendant wishes to raise a claim that his professed inability to
take classes and continue his rehabilitation has resulted in an independent violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights, he would need to do so in a lawsuit brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), not in a
compassionate release motion. A civil rights action under Bivens will not result in Defendant’s
immediate release, but rather is a private action for damages against federal officials alleged to
have violated a citizen’s constitutional rights. Therefore, to the extent Defendant is challenging the
execution of his confinement and seeks immediate release from custody due to alleged Eighth
Amendment violations, he should file a petition seeking habeas corpus relief under § 2241. That
petition must be filed in the district of confinement. See generally United States v. Little, 392 F.3d
671, 679 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that the district court in which the defendant filed his § 2241 was
not the proper venue because it was not the district of confinement).1
Defendant asks the Court to appoint him counsel to assist him with his request for a
compassionate release. However, “a criminal defendant has no right to counsel beyond his first
appeal.” United States v. Legree, 205 F.3d 724, 730 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting Coleman v.
Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 756 (1991). “Though in some exceptional cases due process does
mandate the appointment of counsel for certain postconviction proceedings,” the defendant has
not presented a showing of such exceptional circumstances in this case. Legree, 205 F.3d at 730
1 Defendant is confined at FTC Honolulu, which is located in the District of Hawaii.
Case 5:18-cr-00048-KDB-SCR Document 428 Filed 01/12/23 Page 2 of 3

(internal citation omitted). The Court finds that the interests of justice do not require appointment
of counsel to assist the Defendant at this time.
IT IS, THEREFORE ORDERED, Defendant’s pro se motion for compassionate release
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1),” (Doc. No. 427), is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: January 12, 2023
Case 5:18-cr-00048-KDB-SCR Document 428 Filed 01/12/23 Page 3 of 3